I find myself doubting Methwen's elaborate answers.
Just take the floodlight issue. "The Operations team are getting the engineers to go up there, we think there are one or two different causes between the different bulbs and systems".
It sounds to me like he's just put it on his to do list.
And what a barrage of bullshit he unloaded on that particular issue!
You'd have thought the work was akin to intricate scientific laboratory maintenance on the Hadron Collider..Not changing a feckin light bulb!!
I'm not quoting all of you as it's too much clutter, but I deliberately mentioned Bournemouth, Brighton and Brentford for a reason, that they're Premier League teams. If they hadn't done what what they did (throw a fuck load of cash at it) they'd arguably be back down here, or, a gatekeeper championship side like Preston or Bristol City at best.
At some point, if you don't spend millions, you end up back here. That's what happened to us and that's what will happen to all of them.
You will need to spend millions eventually and show some ambition. Of all the teams you've mentioned, one has already come back down in Wycombe, soon to be another in Plymouth, the others will probably as well if they don't spend. Then you have the likes of Rotherham, Wigan, Burton, Peterborough and Christ knows how many other examples of getting promoted 'sensibly' and coming right back down.
It is all about money, or getting very, very lucky. Always has been, always will be. Convince yourselves otherwise till your hearts content, makes no difference to me.
So just ignore Luton then? The team we are clearly basing ourselves on. Also Brentford in terms of net spend aren’t really on that level either.
To get to the premier league and stay there you obviously need huge investment. But we are talking about trying to get to the championship, at which point we are much more likely to attract the kind of ownership or additional investment that you want. We spend more in league 1 than all those sensible teams did, if they can get promoted on their budgets then so can we. And we spend more than them so have more chance at staying up and continuing to progress if we do things right, and I think we’ve got the right manager to do that
In league 1 when we don’t own our assets, no one is going to pour that kind of money into us. You can keep saying we need it but it’s never going to happen, so how about try and get behind what is actually realistic instead of this pipe dream that we are going to spend millions on players and buy promotion
Wigan is also the exact example of not being sensible. They spent way too much money on wages to get out of league 1, and it ended up putting them in serious difficulty financially. Much rather be sensible than at higher risk of an owner pulling the plug after spending too much
I literally said "Money or getting very, very lucky". Luton would fall into that second category. Luton might also be a league1 team next season. Luck only takes you so far.
Why are you suggesting to me to get behind "what is realistic". I go to more or less every game, is that not getting behind the club? What do you mean by that exactly?
If you want me to be excited about our current state and cheer on being 10th, or credit the board for being where we are, no thanks. I will credit owners when they achieve something real. Until then, I already show enough support by handing over my money and supporting the team with my being there. I don't need to blindly agree with their projects while doing so.
Once again another bickering session that will achieve nothing. My view of Charlton and the footballing world is entirely different to you, these posts achieve nothing.
Same old boring bickering. Lap up what they say till your hearts content, along with all the other posters that do, I won't. All there is to it.
I find myself doubting Methwen's elaborate answers.
Just take the floodlight issue. "The Operations team are getting the engineers to go up there, we think there are one or two different causes between the different bulbs and systems".
It sounds to me like he's just put it on his to do list.
And what a barrage of bullshit he unloaded on that particular issue!
You'd have thought the work was akin to intricate scientific laboratory maintenance on the Hadron Collider..Not changing a feckin light bulb!!
Send up Miles and we can probably save on the cost of a ladder ! 🙂
Didn't watch last night as I find these things pretty much a waste of time as the management bs we all know and love flows superbly.
But if I had, I would have left this one point for the SMT to think about.
Leave Bromley out of the equation, if AFC Wimbledon go up this year and carry on their good form, Leyton Orient carry on the incredible run they are on at the moment and we don't go up, it's not inconceivable we could be the lowest ranked club in London next season.
Think about that. It's incredible. Teams like Orient and Brentford that we always considered no threat lauding it above us whilst the likes of Palace, Fulham, Millwall and QPR that I always thought we were on a par with, if not bigger than in some circumstances, are now firmly established in leagues above us. Indeed, the first two - much as I hate to admit it - miles in front of us atm.
The further we fall, the more our support will crumble as young supporters coming through won't want to be associated with us. Time is not on our side and the SMT really should recognise this.
Great post.
And is the main concern I am trying to highlight. It's being underestimated how fast football moves now, compared to around 10 or so years ago.
I am very concerned about staying in this league. We have an ageing fan base, poor home turnouts, and little reason for neutrals to come watch us. Where we could be in 10 to 20 years could be sickening, it already makes me sick now.
As someone who has mentioned to me on twitter. Charlie Methven said our attendances are up, it's an outright lie. The Valley is bloody empty. They can count all the freebies, no shows etc and lie on the speaker phone about the attendances, but everyone there with a set of eyes can tell its no more than 11k at best most matchdays, less on Tuesday night's.
They are severely underestimating the task at hand.
I have not included the Wrexham game, the average attendance for the other games is 14,378, more than 800 down on our supposed average. As for bums on seats it can be no more than 10,000
I'm not quoting all of you as it's too much clutter, but I deliberately mentioned Bournemouth, Brighton and Brentford for a reason, that they're Premier League teams. If they hadn't done what what they did (throw a fuck load of cash at it) they'd arguably be back down here, or, a gatekeeper championship side like Preston or Bristol City at best.
At some point, if you don't spend millions, you end up back here. That's what happened to us and that's what will happen to all of them.
You will need to spend millions eventually and show some ambition. Of all the teams you've mentioned, one has already come back down in Wycombe, soon to be another in Plymouth, the others will probably as well if they don't spend. Then you have the likes of Rotherham, Wigan, Burton, Peterborough and Christ knows how many other examples of getting promoted 'sensibly' and coming right back down.
It is all about money, or getting very, very lucky. Always has been, always will be. Convince yourselves otherwise till your hearts content, makes no difference to me.
So just ignore Luton then? The team we are clearly basing ourselves on. Also Brentford in terms of net spend aren’t really on that level either.
To get to the premier league and stay there you obviously need huge investment. But we are talking about trying to get to the championship, at which point we are much more likely to attract the kind of ownership or additional investment that you want. We spend more in league 1 than all those sensible teams did, if they can get promoted on their budgets then so can we. And we spend more than them so have more chance at staying up and continuing to progress if we do things right, and I think we’ve got the right manager to do that
In league 1 when we don’t own our assets, no one is going to pour that kind of money into us. You can keep saying we need it but it’s never going to happen, so how about try and get behind what is actually realistic instead of this pipe dream that we are going to spend millions on players and buy promotion
Wigan is also the exact example of not being sensible. They spent way too much money on wages to get out of league 1, and it ended up putting them in serious difficulty financially. Much rather be sensible than at higher risk of an owner pulling the plug after spending too much
I literally said "Money or getting very, very lucky". Luton would fall into that second category. Luton might also be a league1 team next season. Luck only takes you so far.
Why are you suggesting to me to get behind "what is realistic". I go to more or less every game, is that not getting behind the club? What do you mean by that exactly?
If you want me to be excited about our current state and cheer on being 10th, or credit the board for being where we are, no thanks. I will credit owners when they achieve something real. Until then, I already show enough support by handing over my money and supporting the team with my being there. I don't need to blindly agree with their projects while doing so.
Once again another bickering session that will achieve nothing. My view of Charlton and the footballing world is entirely different to you, these posts achieve nothing.
Same old boring bickering. Lap up what they say till your hearts content, along with all the other posters that do, I won't. All there is to it.
Maybe get behind was the wrong choice of words. But I meant forget the “we need to spend millions more on players” criticism because it is just never going to happen. The way out of this for us is smarter recruitment and developing players so they get better. This is clearly our plan, but the execution has been very poor and it is questionable whether we have the right people carrying it out
Noboday is going to come in and increase the playing budget significantly when we are struggling in league 1 and don’t own our assets. The way the owners are trying to get us out of it is the right approach, but so far has been very poorly executed. Which is where there should have been more questions yesterday on our recruitment team and process, as this is the main thing that is holding us back
Didn't watch last night as I find these things pretty much a waste of time as the management bs we all know and love flows superbly.
But if I had, I would have left this one point for the SMT to think about.
Leave Bromley out of the equation, if AFC Wimbledon go up this year and carry on their good form, Leyton Orient carry on the incredible run they are on at the moment and we don't go up, it's not inconceivable we could be the lowest ranked club in London next season.
Think about that. It's incredible. Teams like Orient and Brentford that we always considered no threat lauding it above us whilst the likes of Palace, Fulham, Millwall and QPR that I always thought we were on a par with, if not bigger than in some circumstances, are now firmly established in leagues above us. Indeed, the first two - much as I hate to admit it - miles in front of us atm.
The further we fall, the more our support will crumble as young supporters coming through won't want to be associated with us. Time is not on our side and the SMT really should recognise this.
Great post.
And is the main concern I am trying to highlight. It's being underestimated how fast football moves now, compared to around 10 or so years ago.
I am very concerned about staying in this league. We have an ageing fan base, poor home turnouts, and little reason for neutrals to come watch us. Where we could be in 10 to 20 years could be sickening, it already makes me sick now.
As someone who has mentioned to me on twitter. Charlie Methven said our attendances are up, it's an outright lie. The Valley is bloody empty. They can count all the freebies, no shows etc and lie on the speaker phone about the attendances, but everyone there with a set of eyes can tell its no more than 11k at best most matchdays, less on Tuesday night's.
They are severely underestimating the task at hand.
I have not included the Wrexham game, the average attendance for the other games is 14,378, more than 800 down on our supposed average. As for bums on seats it can be no more than 10,000
More whoppers than you'll see at Burger King.
Of course it was going to be nonsense mate. Was hardly going to be up after our worst finish in about 50 thousand years and a lack of ambitious transfer activity.
I watch these things out of curiosity but I’ve long accepted that I’m so cautious and cynical of executive presented speak that i don’t believe a single thing that’s said.
Methven’s slide was to show transparency but also to show the things under his (non-football) remit are going in the right direction. Everything is up, we’re doing great is the message.
But the devil is always in the detail that’s not shared, why was 2 seasons ago used as the comparator? Why were the category breakdowns different to those in the published accounts so they couldn’t be fact checked? With nearly half a season and potential playoffs ahead, what factors were built into the forcasted figures for this season that showed everything being up?
Methven is an assertive and convincing orator, on the face of it you more often than not nod along in agreement with pretty much everything he says as he speaks persuasively and based on what he asserts as ‘truth’. You just have to take stock at times and question the fullness of the truth.
For example, he made a big thing (mentioned at least twice) that ‘attendances were strongly up’. But everyone that has been every game this season knows that in no way are attendances strongly up, there was one freak game v Wrexham that distorted the average.
These things shouldn’t be treated too seriously. It’s good that the club are willing to do them as it does provide an element of public accountability but we’ll know when the club has finally turned the corner on the pitch when it stops being such a cautiously managed message exercise.
Reading your post, Dan, reminded me of something Paul Weller states in the film we watched yesterday - Blitz.
Another adage from out grandparents' times...
" More mouth than trousers ".
Or in CM's case " More mouth than pink trousers ".
Correction Fanny….the adage is “All mouth and trousers” not “More mouth than trousers.”
I watch these things out of curiosity but I’ve long accepted that I’m so cautious and cynical of executive presented speak that i don’t believe a single thing that’s said.
Methven’s slide was to show transparency but also to show the things under his (non-football) remit are going in the right direction. Everything is up, we’re doing great is the message.
But the devil is always in the detail that’s not shared, why was 2 seasons ago used as the comparator? Why were the category breakdowns different to those in the published accounts so they couldn’t be fact checked? With nearly half a season and potential playoffs ahead, what factors were built into the forcasted figures for this season that showed everything being up?
Methven is an assertive and convincing orator, on the face of it you more often than not nod along in agreement with pretty much everything he says as he speaks persuasively and based on what he asserts as ‘truth’. You just have to take stock at times and question the fullness of the truth.
For example, he made a big thing (mentioned at least twice) that ‘attendances were strongly up’. But everyone that has been every game this season knows that in no way are attendances strongly up, there was one freak game v Wrexham that distorted the average.
These things shouldn’t be treated too seriously. It’s good that the club are willing to do them as it does provide an element of public accountability but we’ll know when the club has finally turned the corner on the pitch when it stops being such a cautiously managed message exercise.
Another factor is away support - we’ve already played the clubs likely to attend in large numbers. Attendance figures for home support are pretty meaningless as we can all see they are off by thousands and the element of that which is unused comps can’t be determined externally.
Some good ie the top line finances although we seemed to have skipped a year.
Net transfer spend of £800k to £1m
CM sometimes lets slip more than he intends.
IE bringing catering in house, change in shirt sponsors. Shame those issues weren't probed more but you can't blame in-house interviewers for not going full Jeremy Paxman
Think he confirmed what I said a few weeks back eg the big money guys are happy to put in what they said they would (£10m pa) but they aren't going to splash the cash over and above that.
CM was right say we can't talk about success until we get promoted. Were not on track for that but at least he acknowledged that.
Carter isn't a natural on TV and I keep thinking he's @AFKABartram but he is on top of his brief and appears to be constantly talking to managers.
On to the negative. The questioning was largely vague and soft, and especially from the reps. The fans questions from whattsapp were better and more to the point.
And Ali Maxwell: why? Must be a dozen CAFC fans who could do that.
Technically it was poor, sound was uneven and someone tell CM to look into the camers
I actually think all the fan engagement stuff is good but it's not very sexy for most fans and I have my own issues right now about how much it is real when push comes to shove.
Pleased for Jon and Lewis. I still thing the advisory board set up is totally wrong but that's for another debate.
I'm a big critic of CAST so this will be dismissed by some as having an axe to grind but tonight Heather didn't present CAST as an organisation likely to ask tough or probing questions or that would hold the board to account.
Overall, it was good that it happened but I think the club over managed it due to a lack of confidence/fear of difficult questions when in reality they would have been better to just take whatever came. Nothing should really come as a surprise to them and none of the four are that inarticulate or unable to think on their feet.
So, in a nutshell......
The owners are happy to keep ploughing in £10m a year just to stay in this division, with every few seasons a player sale might be enough to buy a couple more mediocre players that will help us finish 10th. Because they have no ambition to ever spend any money that might get us out of this poxy league.
RIght-o.
Not what I said.
I believe CM sold them the idea that he could reduce costs and increase income (see his ££ slide) and this, plus boosting the squad with academy talent which is our big USP, would produce the additional budget to produce a promotion winning team.
Not happened IMHO because of our poor recruitment (even Rodwell said how poorly we'd used the loan market) and the churn of managers.
I didn’t listen to it, but my reading of the comments made by the SMT is very simple, the plan is. That the owners agreed to give Charlton £10 million a year (losses where around £9 million per year when they took over) to fund the losses which they appear to be doing and are willing to do, therefore at present they are keeping to there part of the plan. This meant we had a million to invest in players and infrastructure/ infrastructure.
The problem is that the SMT stated they could reduce the losses to a more sustainable £3 million or less per year which meant there would be around £7 million per year for investment in players and infrastructure, this they have failed to do successfully as from the figures shown by the SMT would appear that the reduction was being generous £1/2 million or less, so the losses reduced from around £9 million to £8.5 millions. Which means now we have £1.5 millions to invest in infrastructure/ players.
So as I see it the owners are doing their bit, but the SMT have totally failed, I know this is very simplistic but, the owners must be looking at the figures and surly thinking, the SMT are failing and need replacing. They will not be thinking about spending more money than they agreed to (for ground purchase, but if pushed them may consider extending lease), infrastructure and new players, let’s be honest would you?
So my expectations is that there will be a new SMT in place by this time next year, they will be charged to reduce costs hopefully to a more realistic figure (my guess £5 million or less) therefore Charlton would have around £5 million a year for infrastructure and players. The big worry is how do you reduce the losses to £5 million?
Probably a load of rubbish, but that’s my take from what I read on here.
Yes, firstly, I've no idea where the £3m figure came from....... and that would have made a good question perhaps? And then grasping at a straw...... would it be feasible to develop the academy to contributing a further £7m net per annum from player sales......... mens and women's..... by somehow holding on to our young talent for longer.... for silly money...... rather than taking the first offer that came along.....?
Some good ie the top line finances although we seemed to have skipped a year.
Net transfer spend of £800k to £1m
CM sometimes lets slip more than he intends.
IE bringing catering in house, change in shirt sponsors. Shame those issues weren't probed more but you can't blame in-house interviewers for not going full Jeremy Paxman
Think he confirmed what I said a few weeks back eg the big money guys are happy to put in what they said they would (£10m pa) but they aren't going to splash the cash over and above that.
CM was right say we can't talk about success until we get promoted. Were not on track for that but at least he acknowledged that.
Carter isn't a natural on TV and I keep thinking he's @AFKABartram but he is on top of his brief and appears to be constantly talking to managers.
On to the negative. The questioning was largely vague and soft, and especially from the reps. The fans questions from whattsapp were better and more to the point.
And Ali Maxwell: why? Must be a dozen CAFC fans who could do that.
Technically it was poor, sound was uneven and someone tell CM to look into the camers
I actually think all the fan engagement stuff is good but it's not very sexy for most fans and I have my own issues right now about how much it is real when push comes to shove.
Pleased for Jon and Lewis. I still thing the advisory board set up is totally wrong but that's for another debate.
I'm a big critic of CAST so this will be dismissed by some as having an axe to grind but tonight Heather didn't present CAST as an organisation likely to ask tough or probing questions or that would hold the board to account.
Overall, it was good that it happened but I think the club over managed it due to a lack of confidence/fear of difficult questions when in reality they would have been better to just take whatever came. Nothing should really come as a surprise to them and none of the four are that inarticulate or unable to think on their feet.
So, in a nutshell......
The owners are happy to keep ploughing in £10m a year just to stay in this division, with every few seasons a player sale might be enough to buy a couple more mediocre players that will help us finish 10th. Because they have no ambition to ever spend any money that might get us out of this poxy league.
RIght-o.
Not what I said.
I believe CM sold them the idea that he could reduce costs and increase income (see his ££ slide) and this, plus boosting the squad with academy talent which is our big USP, would produce the additional budget to produce a promotion winning team.
Not happened IMHO because of our poor recruitment (even Rodwell said how poorly we'd used the loan market) and the churn of managers.
I didn’t listen to it, but my reading of the comments made by the SMT is very simple, the plan is. That the owners agreed to give Charlton £10 million a year (losses where around £9 million per year when they took over) to fund the losses which they appear to be doing and are willing to do, therefore at present they are keeping to there part of the plan. This meant we had a million to invest in players and infrastructure/ infrastructure.
The problem is that the SMT stated they could reduce the losses to a more sustainable £3 million or less per year which meant there would be around £7 million per year for investment in players and infrastructure, this they have failed to do successfully as from the figures shown by the SMT would appear that the reduction was being generous £1/2 million or less, so the losses reduced from around £9 million to £8.5 millions. Which means now we have £1.5 millions to invest in infrastructure/ players.
So as I see it the owners are doing their bit, but the SMT have totally failed, I know this is very simplistic but, the owners must be looking at the figures and surly thinking, the SMT are failing and need replacing. They will not be thinking about spending more money than they agreed to (for ground purchase, but if pushed them may consider extending lease), infrastructure and new players, let’s be honest would you?
So my expectations is that there will be a new SMT in place by this time next year, they will be charged to reduce costs hopefully to a more realistic figure (my guess £5 million or less) therefore Charlton would have around £5 million a year for infrastructure and players. The big worry is how do you reduce the losses to £5 million?
Probably a load of rubbish, but that’s my take from what I read on here.
Yes, firstly, I've no idea where the £3m figure came from....... and that would have made a good question perhaps? And then grasping at a straw...... would it be feasible to develop the academy to contributing a further £7m net per annum from player sales......... mens and women's..... by somehow holding on to our young talent for longer.... for silly money...... rather than taking the first offer that came along.....?
He actually said £1m-£2m and that anyone competent could do that and then offset it with player trading - the article does refer to promotion although not in his quote. It’s unlikely you could get to £1m-£2m and stay in the Championship year on year. RD tried that. It basically means running a L1 playing budget and filling the operating loss with the extra central income.
i have a feeling CM said something about getting operating losses down to £6m this season previously, but I haven’t found it. Anyone else remember that?
I always find myself wondering what we expect directors, CEO's, whoever, to say in relation to the nuts and bolts running of the club. It almost becomes a tick box exercise...'we've engaged with fans so nobody can say we are not transparent'. For all the loose statements and expentency from us as fans, the one true result is success on the Football pitch and doesn't matter what division you find yourself in the next season becomes even more difficult, just look at Huddersfield and Birmingham buying Bolton's and Charlton's best strikers, would that happen in reverse, no of course not, so the task is made ever harder. I know fans don't like it but I agree with Nathan Jones, Andy Scott and Charlie, from where we've been in recent years, we have a long way to come back and it won't happen overnight, we just ain't that lucky.
I watch these things out of curiosity but I’ve long accepted that I’m so cautious and cynical of executive presented speak that i don’t believe a single thing that’s said.
Methven’s slide was to show transparency but also to show the things under his (non-football) remit are going in the right direction. Everything is up, we’re doing great is the message.
But the devil is always in the detail that’s not shared, why was 2 seasons ago used as the comparator? Why were the category breakdowns different to those in the published accounts so they couldn’t be fact checked? With nearly half a season and potential playoffs ahead, what factors were built into the forcasted figures for this season that showed everything being up?
Methven is an assertive and convincing orator, on the face of it you more often than not nod along in agreement with pretty much everything he says as he speaks persuasively and based on what he asserts as ‘truth’. You just have to take stock at times and question the fullness of the truth.
For example, he made a big thing (mentioned at least twice) that ‘attendances were strongly up’. But everyone that has been every game this season knows that in no way are attendances strongly up, there was one freak game v Wrexham that distorted the average.
These things shouldn’t be treated too seriously. It’s good that the club are willing to do them as it does provide an element of public accountability but we’ll know when the club has finally turned the corner on the pitch when it stops being such a cautiously managed message exercise.
Another factor is away support - we’ve already played the clubs likely to attend in large numbers. Attendance figures for home support are pretty meaningless as we can all see they are off by thousands and the element of that which is unused comps can’t be determined externally.
I tuned in for 2 mins at one point and CM was saying away support is also down for midweek games at The Valley due to the Sky deal. Obviously that isn't substantial £ for us but I did think it was interesting
I watch these things out of curiosity but I’ve long accepted that I’m so cautious and cynical of executive presented speak that i don’t believe a single thing that’s said.
Methven’s slide was to show transparency but also to show the things under his (non-football) remit are going in the right direction. Everything is up, we’re doing great is the message.
But the devil is always in the detail that’s not shared, why was 2 seasons ago used as the comparator? Why were the category breakdowns different to those in the published accounts so they couldn’t be fact checked? With nearly half a season and potential playoffs ahead, what factors were built into the forcasted figures for this season that showed everything being up?
Methven is an assertive and convincing orator, on the face of it you more often than not nod along in agreement with pretty much everything he says as he speaks persuasively and based on what he asserts as ‘truth’. You just have to take stock at times and question the fullness of the truth.
For example, he made a big thing (mentioned at least twice) that ‘attendances were strongly up’. But everyone that has been every game this season knows that in no way are attendances strongly up, there was one freak game v Wrexham that distorted the average.
These things shouldn’t be treated too seriously. It’s good that the club are willing to do them as it does provide an element of public accountability but we’ll know when the club has finally turned the corner on the pitch when it stops being such a cautiously managed message exercise.
Another factor is away support - we’ve already played the clubs likely to attend in large numbers. Attendance figures for home support are pretty meaningless as we can all see they are off by thousands and the element of that which is unused comps can’t be determined externally.
I tuned in for 2 mins at one point and CM was saying away support is also down for midweek games at The Valley due to the Sky deal. Obviously that isn't substantial £ for us but I did think it was interesting
Be interesting to see the overall impact of this on attendances in general, home and away, across the efl
I watch these things out of curiosity but I’ve long accepted that I’m so cautious and cynical of executive presented speak that i don’t believe a single thing that’s said.
Methven’s slide was to show transparency but also to show the things under his (non-football) remit are going in the right direction. Everything is up, we’re doing great is the message.
But the devil is always in the detail that’s not shared, why was 2 seasons ago used as the comparator? Why were the category breakdowns different to those in the published accounts so they couldn’t be fact checked? With nearly half a season and potential playoffs ahead, what factors were built into the forcasted figures for this season that showed everything being up?
Methven is an assertive and convincing orator, on the face of it you more often than not nod along in agreement with pretty much everything he says as he speaks persuasively and based on what he asserts as ‘truth’. You just have to take stock at times and question the fullness of the truth.
For example, he made a big thing (mentioned at least twice) that ‘attendances were strongly up’. But everyone that has been every game this season knows that in no way are attendances strongly up, there was one freak game v Wrexham that distorted the average.
These things shouldn’t be treated too seriously. It’s good that the club are willing to do them as it does provide an element of public accountability but we’ll know when the club has finally turned the corner on the pitch when it stops being such a cautiously managed message exercise.
Another factor is away support - we’ve already played the clubs likely to attend in large numbers. Attendance figures for home support are pretty meaningless as we can all see they are off by thousands and the element of that which is unused comps can’t be determined externally.
I tuned in for 2 mins at one point and CM was saying away support is also down for midweek games at The Valley due to the Sky deal. Obviously that isn't substantial £ for us but I did think it was interesting
Don't have the info but does the Sky deal offset the expected ticket sales ? I would have thought retail sales would be negligible as a deficit but who knows. Also the clubs getting guaranteed income from Sky would be preferable to the clubs expected or not income from away support, but I'm no expert so happy to be corrected.
There are some valid points and critiques being made of the SMT, board and ultimately last nights presentation, there is also a lot of whining that is bordering on a child not being able to get a bar of chocolate at the supermarket and unrealistic expectations. I thought the plan presented yesterday seemed reasonable without being a Birmingham/Wrexham 'Were gonna chuck £50m at it and cross our fingers' which is obviously more exciting short term. Obviously the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but it definitely feels more structured and planned than it has for some time at Charlton. I feel like the only way that meeting yesterday would have got everyone on side is if they would have announced a transfer warchest, which seems to be in conflict with their strategy.
Jon Whitfield and Lewis Catt appointed to the new Advisory Board.
Get the fuck in Defo the two best candidates
Brilliant. They should be running the supporters Trust as well.
Of course anyone who wants to change the trust could stand for election on the board, doesn’t seem to happen people just pile on. I haven’t been able to watch tonight and I’m sure the criticism is valid but if people want to change something they have the option to
Nothing wrong with the concept of a Supporters Trust. Every club should have one, but its how its run is important
Name one that is run significantly better, and how exactly.
Alternatively stand for election, get voted in, and show us all how to run it better.
no knowledge on the trust either pro or anti, just think that the questions, that they thought to be important to the fans, were completely misjudged and therefore give the impression that they do not have their finger on the pulse of what is the fans priorities.
They are not the questions I'd have asked either. The first one might have worked if Heather was moderating a live interview with them, with follow up questions and in front of a live audience. Second one seemed pretty marginal to me too, but I suppose Heather figured that all the most obvious questions would be asked by multiple fans,and she's always aware the Trust has to represent the broad fanbase. I'm sure she didn't think the banner was the most important issue to ask about.
The Supporters Trust, and most other Supporters Trusts would much prefer a live meeting of sustained questioning, or regular minuted closed meetings, with owners/SMTs. Very few STs manage to get that. The more "issues' there are among supporters, the less likely owners and SMTs agree to such formats.
Anyway my response was specifically to Shirty5 who has been making similar comments like that for the last 10 years without ever explaining how it would be run better, let alone getting himself elected to run it better. And I've met with a lot of ST board members from other clubs in the last 10 years ago, they all get the same kind of shit hurled at them. Two stalwarts from the Spurs Trust, name of Martin Cloake and Kat Law were out here a few weeks ago so I caught up with them. Top people. Managed to get Daniel Levy to agree to minuted meetings. Few years back, Kat was getting vicious dogs' abuse on Twitter from mighty Spurs keyboard warriors about the state of the stadium bogs, I mean like, as if it were her responsibility to get them fixed. Thing was, they weren't the bogs at WHL. They weren't even bogs in an English stadium. It was effing Red Star Belgrade!! Kat was there of course, they are away with Spurs most games, and apparently because she was there, she should have had the Serbian khazis fixed.
Good luck to John and Lewis, let's see how much they manage to achieve.
You mention Martin Cloake…..surely that can’t be the ex member of the Charlton Vice Presidents Club? He lives in West London and Charlton blood runs through his veins, he is/was a black cab driver. Nice fella and his son is also a 100% Addick, often seen together at home and some away games….though I must admit I’ve not seen him for a while. I find it very hard to believe that he would be involved in any shape or form with Spurs? 🧐
I watch these things out of curiosity but I’ve long accepted that I’m so cautious and cynical of executive presented speak that i don’t believe a single thing that’s said.
Methven’s slide was to show transparency but also to show the things under his (non-football) remit are going in the right direction. Everything is up, we’re doing great is the message.
But the devil is always in the detail that’s not shared, why was 2 seasons ago used as the comparator? Why were the category breakdowns different to those in the published accounts so they couldn’t be fact checked? With nearly half a season and potential playoffs ahead, what factors were built into the forcasted figures for this season that showed everything being up?
Methven is an assertive and convincing orator, on the face of it you more often than not nod along in agreement with pretty much everything he says as he speaks persuasively and based on what he asserts as ‘truth’. You just have to take stock at times and question the fullness of the truth.
For example, he made a big thing (mentioned at least twice) that ‘attendances were strongly up’. But everyone that has been every game this season knows that in no way are attendances strongly up, there was one freak game v Wrexham that distorted the average.
These things shouldn’t be treated too seriously. It’s good that the club are willing to do them as it does provide an element of public accountability but we’ll know when the club has finally turned the corner on the pitch when it stops being such a cautiously managed message exercise.
Another factor is away support - we’ve already played the clubs likely to attend in large numbers. Attendance figures for home support are pretty meaningless as we can all see they are off by thousands and the element of that which is unused comps can’t be determined externally.
I tuned in for 2 mins at one point and CM was saying away support is also down for midweek games at The Valley due to the Sky deal. Obviously that isn't substantial £ for us but I did think it was interesting
Due to Sky or that we are only a mid table L3 team?
There are some valid points and critiques being made of the SMT, board and ultimately last nights presentation, there is also a lot of whining that is bordering on a child not being able to get a bar of chocolate at the supermarket and unrealistic expectations. I thought the plan presented yesterday seemed reasonable without being a Birmingham/Wrexham 'Were gonna chuck £50m at it and cross our fingers' which is obviously more exciting short term. Obviously the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but it definitely feels more structured and planned than it has for some time at Charlton. I feel like the only way that meeting yesterday would have got everyone on side is if they would have announced a transfer warchest, which seems to be in conflict with their strategy.
I think the last point you made Yann sums up most fans out of the premiership. I've been yearning for the club to spend money since 1968 and if I'm being honest, for the same time scale, I've been pleading for the club not to sell its best players. My pleas have always fallen on deaf ears but when I look back at the success that got us into the play off final under Curbs, we put that squad together, in the main, by the sale of our best player, Lee Bowyer, to Leeds and I remember Richard Murray openly admitting that if we hadn't beaten Sunderland, we would have had to sell players. We gambled then and it payed off, the odds of that happening again are pretty slim I would have thought.
I watch these things out of curiosity but I’ve long accepted that I’m so cautious and cynical of executive presented speak that i don’t believe a single thing that’s said.
Methven’s slide was to show transparency but also to show the things under his (non-football) remit are going in the right direction. Everything is up, we’re doing great is the message.
But the devil is always in the detail that’s not shared, why was 2 seasons ago used as the comparator? Why were the category breakdowns different to those in the published accounts so they couldn’t be fact checked? With nearly half a season and potential playoffs ahead, what factors were built into the forcasted figures for this season that showed everything being up?
Methven is an assertive and convincing orator, on the face of it you more often than not nod along in agreement with pretty much everything he says as he speaks persuasively and based on what he asserts as ‘truth’. You just have to take stock at times and question the fullness of the truth.
For example, he made a big thing (mentioned at least twice) that ‘attendances were strongly up’. But everyone that has been every game this season knows that in no way are attendances strongly up, there was one freak game v Wrexham that distorted the average.
These things shouldn’t be treated too seriously. It’s good that the club are willing to do them as it does provide an element of public accountability but we’ll know when the club has finally turned the corner on the pitch when it stops being such a cautiously managed message exercise.
Another factor is away support - we’ve already played the clubs likely to attend in large numbers. Attendance figures for home support are pretty meaningless as we can all see they are off by thousands and the element of that which is unused comps can’t be determined externally.
I tuned in for 2 mins at one point and CM was saying away support is also down for midweek games at The Valley due to the Sky deal. Obviously that isn't substantial £ for us but I did think it was interesting
Due to Sky or that we are only a mid table L3 team?
The point he specifically made was that fans of teams who had to travel more than about 90 mins were coming less, that suggests to me it's Sky rather than the fact they're playing against Charlton
Jon Whitfield and Lewis Catt appointed to the new Advisory Board.
Get the fuck in Defo the two best candidates
Brilliant. They should be running the supporters Trust as well.
Of course anyone who wants to change the trust could stand for election on the board, doesn’t seem to happen people just pile on. I haven’t been able to watch tonight and I’m sure the criticism is valid but if people want to change something they have the option to
Nothing wrong with the concept of a Supporters Trust. Every club should have one, but its how its run is important
Name one that is run significantly better, and how exactly.
Alternatively stand for election, get voted in, and show us all how to run it better.
no knowledge on the trust either pro or anti, just think that the questions, that they thought to be important to the fans, were completely misjudged and therefore give the impression that they do not have their finger on the pulse of what is the fans priorities.
They are not the questions I'd have asked either. The first one might have worked if Heather was moderating a live interview with them, with follow up questions and in front of a live audience. Second one seemed pretty marginal to me too, but I suppose Heather figured that all the most obvious questions would be asked by multiple fans,and she's always aware the Trust has to represent the broad fanbase. I'm sure she didn't think the banner was the most important issue to ask about.
The Supporters Trust, and most other Supporters Trusts would much prefer a live meeting of sustained questioning, or regular minuted closed meetings, with owners/SMTs. Very few STs manage to get that. The more "issues' there are among supporters, the less likely owners and SMTs agree to such formats.
Anyway my response was specifically to Shirty5 who has been making similar comments like that for the last 10 years without ever explaining how it would be run better, let alone getting himself elected to run it better. And I've met with a lot of ST board members from other clubs in the last 10 years ago, they all get the same kind of shit hurled at them. Two stalwarts from the Spurs Trust, name of Martin Cloake and Kat Law were out here a few weeks ago so I caught up with them. Top people. Managed to get Daniel Levy to agree to minuted meetings. Few years back, Kat was getting vicious dogs' abuse on Twitter from mighty Spurs keyboard warriors about the state of the stadium bogs, I mean like, as if it were her responsibility to get them fixed. Thing was, they weren't the bogs at WHL. They weren't even bogs in an English stadium. It was effing Red Star Belgrade!! Kat was there of course, they are away with Spurs most games, and apparently because she was there, she should have had the Serbian khazis fixed.
Good luck to John and Lewis, let's see how much they manage to achieve.
You mention Martin Cloake…..surely that can’t be the ex member of the Charlton Vice Presidents Club? He lives in West London and Charlton blood runs through his veins, he is/was a black cab driver. Nice fella and his son is also a 100% Addick, often seen together at home and some away games….though I must admit I’ve not seen him for a while. I find it very hard to believe that he would be involved in any shape or form with Spurs? 🧐
There’s a different Martin Cloake who is part of the Spurs trust.
“Our” Martin Cloke’s son Ben is one of our guys on Charlton Live
I watch these things out of curiosity but I’ve long accepted that I’m so cautious and cynical of executive presented speak that i don’t believe a single thing that’s said.
Methven’s slide was to show transparency but also to show the things under his (non-football) remit are going in the right direction. Everything is up, we’re doing great is the message.
But the devil is always in the detail that’s not shared, why was 2 seasons ago used as the comparator? Why were the category breakdowns different to those in the published accounts so they couldn’t be fact checked? With nearly half a season and potential playoffs ahead, what factors were built into the forcasted figures for this season that showed everything being up?
Methven is an assertive and convincing orator, on the face of it you more often than not nod along in agreement with pretty much everything he says as he speaks persuasively and based on what he asserts as ‘truth’. You just have to take stock at times and question the fullness of the truth.
For example, he made a big thing (mentioned at least twice) that ‘attendances were strongly up’. But everyone that has been every game this season knows that in no way are attendances strongly up, there was one freak game v Wrexham that distorted the average.
These things shouldn’t be treated too seriously. It’s good that the club are willing to do them as it does provide an element of public accountability but we’ll know when the club has finally turned the corner on the pitch when it stops being such a cautiously managed message exercise.
Another factor is away support - we’ve already played the clubs likely to attend in large numbers. Attendance figures for home support are pretty meaningless as we can all see they are off by thousands and the element of that which is unused comps can’t be determined externally.
I tuned in for 2 mins at one point and CM was saying away support is also down for midweek games at The Valley due to the Sky deal. Obviously that isn't substantial £ for us but I did think it was interesting
Due to Sky or that we are only a mid table L3 team?
The point he specifically made was that fans of teams who had to travel more than about 90 mins were coming less, that suggests to me it's Sky rather than the fact they're playing against Charlton
And we aren’t attractive to the opposition either?
I watch these things out of curiosity but I’ve long accepted that I’m so cautious and cynical of executive presented speak that i don’t believe a single thing that’s said.
Methven’s slide was to show transparency but also to show the things under his (non-football) remit are going in the right direction. Everything is up, we’re doing great is the message.
But the devil is always in the detail that’s not shared, why was 2 seasons ago used as the comparator? Why were the category breakdowns different to those in the published accounts so they couldn’t be fact checked? With nearly half a season and potential playoffs ahead, what factors were built into the forcasted figures for this season that showed everything being up?
Methven is an assertive and convincing orator, on the face of it you more often than not nod along in agreement with pretty much everything he says as he speaks persuasively and based on what he asserts as ‘truth’. You just have to take stock at times and question the fullness of the truth.
For example, he made a big thing (mentioned at least twice) that ‘attendances were strongly up’. But everyone that has been every game this season knows that in no way are attendances strongly up, there was one freak game v Wrexham that distorted the average.
These things shouldn’t be treated too seriously. It’s good that the club are willing to do them as it does provide an element of public accountability but we’ll know when the club has finally turned the corner on the pitch when it stops being such a cautiously managed message exercise.
Another factor is away support - we’ve already played the clubs likely to attend in large numbers. Attendance figures for home support are pretty meaningless as we can all see they are off by thousands and the element of that which is unused comps can’t be determined externally.
I tuned in for 2 mins at one point and CM was saying away support is also down for midweek games at The Valley due to the Sky deal. Obviously that isn't substantial £ for us but I did think it was interesting
Due to Sky or that we are only a mid table L3 team?
It's because we are mid-table league1 and people find us boring.
200 or so at Bolton away on a Tuesday, if it was Liverpool or Man City in a cup game, we sell out our allocation, regardless of it being on telly.
Same applies to teams visting the Valley, if you have the choice between TV or the 5 hour plus round trip, you'd opt for the telly most times, and I don't blame people.
The cure for that, is being a good football team. That's the harsh truth.
Sorry, but a waste of time, people shouldn't even bother tuning in.
Ultimately the two most important things (promotion and ground ownership) are solved by money, and it appears we have owners that aren't willing to break the bank to get it done.
We won't improve our fan base, as there's too many London clubs better than us, we are currently the 3rd worst professional London football club out of 13 (I am not including the non league riff raff). Until that changes, we won't attract new fans (on a large scale) unless they are generational fans.
I'd actually be happy for them to say at this point "we don't have the money to bring you back to the Premier league, we are aiming to keep you afloat until we can make you a more ambitious project to purchase for someone else and make some potential profit on you". Deadly serious as well. I don't believe for a second these owners care further than viewing us as a 3-5 year flip project.
You cannot and I can't emphasise this enough, cannot sustain in this league for a club of our size in London. We are being swallowed every year by more ambitious clubs around us. Brentford as an example are a much bigger club than us now. Forget history, no one cares that we had a good few years in the prem. They dwarf us in following and riches now, that would have been inconceivable only over a decade or so ago. How bad can it get in another decade?
I think people genuinely underestimate how broken we are at times based on youtube chats etc.
All these questions about signs, turnstiles and food options do my nut in. I want to watch Charlton be a team that plays at the top level or at least the second level. Not mixing it up with bloody Shrewsbury, Northampton etc every year. (Sorry any Salops and Cobblers who may be floating about.)
It's imperative we get out of this league and become a good football side again, and it feels like cold water is being thrown on that to me. It's all about being 'sensible' and you just can't be in the modern game, you'll be left behind.
Spot on. Many of the questions are always so idiotic it beggars belief.
Supporters have the opportunity to ask anything about the future of the club’s ambitions and very existence and we get questions about signs and food etc etc.
I watch these things out of curiosity but I’ve long accepted that I’m so cautious and cynical of executive presented speak that i don’t believe a single thing that’s said.
Methven’s slide was to show transparency but also to show the things under his (non-football) remit are going in the right direction. Everything is up, we’re doing great is the message.
But the devil is always in the detail that’s not shared, why was 2 seasons ago used as the comparator? Why were the category breakdowns different to those in the published accounts so they couldn’t be fact checked? With nearly half a season and potential playoffs ahead, what factors were built into the forcasted figures for this season that showed everything being up?
Methven is an assertive and convincing orator, on the face of it you more often than not nod along in agreement with pretty much everything he says as he speaks persuasively and based on what he asserts as ‘truth’. You just have to take stock at times and question the fullness of the truth.
For example, he made a big thing (mentioned at least twice) that ‘attendances were strongly up’. But everyone that has been every game this season knows that in no way are attendances strongly up, there was one freak game v Wrexham that distorted the average.
These things shouldn’t be treated too seriously. It’s good that the club are willing to do them as it does provide an element of public accountability but we’ll know when the club has finally turned the corner on the pitch when it stops being such a cautiously managed message exercise.
Another factor is away support - we’ve already played the clubs likely to attend in large numbers. Attendance figures for home support are pretty meaningless as we can all see they are off by thousands and the element of that which is unused comps can’t be determined externally.
I tuned in for 2 mins at one point and CM was saying away support is also down for midweek games at The Valley due to the Sky deal. Obviously that isn't substantial £ for us but I did think it was interesting
Due to Sky or that we are only a mid table L3 team?
It's because we are mid-table league1 and people find us boring.
200 or so at Bolton away on a Tuesday, if it was Liverpool or Man City in a cup game, we sell out our allocation, regardless of it being on telly.
Same applies to teams visting the Valley, if you have the choice between TV or the 5 hour plus round trip, you'd opt for the telly most times, and I don't blame people.
The cure for that, is being a good football team. That's the harsh truth.
I'm not sure fans care who the opposition is much do they? I know you will go to away games regardless and I will go to any that I can, doesn't bother me if the opposition play good football or not. We'll always take more to Man Utd because it's unusual but we wouldn't take more to Rotherham if they played football like 2010 Barcelona
I watch these things out of curiosity but I’ve long accepted that I’m so cautious and cynical of executive presented speak that i don’t believe a single thing that’s said.
Methven’s slide was to show transparency but also to show the things under his (non-football) remit are going in the right direction. Everything is up, we’re doing great is the message.
But the devil is always in the detail that’s not shared, why was 2 seasons ago used as the comparator? Why were the category breakdowns different to those in the published accounts so they couldn’t be fact checked? With nearly half a season and potential playoffs ahead, what factors were built into the forcasted figures for this season that showed everything being up?
Methven is an assertive and convincing orator, on the face of it you more often than not nod along in agreement with pretty much everything he says as he speaks persuasively and based on what he asserts as ‘truth’. You just have to take stock at times and question the fullness of the truth.
For example, he made a big thing (mentioned at least twice) that ‘attendances were strongly up’. But everyone that has been every game this season knows that in no way are attendances strongly up, there was one freak game v Wrexham that distorted the average.
These things shouldn’t be treated too seriously. It’s good that the club are willing to do them as it does provide an element of public accountability but we’ll know when the club has finally turned the corner on the pitch when it stops being such a cautiously managed message exercise.
Another factor is away support - we’ve already played the clubs likely to attend in large numbers. Attendance figures for home support are pretty meaningless as we can all see they are off by thousands and the element of that which is unused comps can’t be determined externally.
I tuned in for 2 mins at one point and CM was saying away support is also down for midweek games at The Valley due to the Sky deal. Obviously that isn't substantial £ for us but I did think it was interesting
Due to Sky or that we are only a mid table L3 team?
It's because we are mid-table league1 and people find us boring.
200 or so at Bolton away on a Tuesday, if it was Liverpool or Man City in a cup game, we sell out our allocation, regardless of it being on telly.
Same applies to teams visting the Valley, if you have the choice between TV or the 5 hour plus round trip, you'd opt for the telly most times, and I don't blame people.
The cure for that, is being a good football team. That's the harsh truth.
I'm not sure fans care who the opposition is much do they? I know you will go to away games regardless and I will go to any that I can, doesn't bother me if the opposition play good football or not. We'll always take more to Man Utd because it's unusual but we wouldn't take more to Rotherham if they played football like 2010 Barcelona
I guess I’m commenting as much that L3 has a ceiling given the general quality of football.
Don’t forget as a ‘London’ team we maybe get some extra away visitors because they might make a trip of it.
Sky must hit as well naturally but last year it could be streamed via clubs own subscription stuff as a non 3pm kick off.
Comments
You'd have thought the work was akin to intricate scientific laboratory maintenance on the Hadron Collider..Not changing a feckin light bulb!!
Why are you suggesting to me to get behind "what is realistic". I go to more or less every game, is that not getting behind the club? What do you mean by that exactly?
If you want me to be excited about our current state and cheer on being 10th, or credit the board for being where we are, no thanks. I will credit owners when they achieve something real. Until then, I already show enough support by handing over my money and supporting the team with my being there. I don't need to blindly agree with their projects while doing so.
Once again another bickering session that will achieve nothing. My view of Charlton and the footballing world is entirely different to you, these posts achieve nothing.
Same old boring bickering. Lap up what they say till your hearts content, along with all the other posters that do, I won't. All there is to it.
New sign.
But.
No sign of signings...
Noboday is going to come in and increase the playing budget significantly when we are struggling in league 1 and don’t own our assets. The way the owners are trying to get us out of it is the right approach, but so far has been very poorly executed. Which is where there should have been more questions yesterday on our recruitment team and process, as this is the main thing that is holding us back
Of course it was going to be nonsense mate. Was hardly going to be up after our worst finish in about 50 thousand years and a lack of ambitious transfer activity.
I'm sure at Shrewsbury there will be 14k ay.
Nobody seems to have any idea where to get that money from though.
not “More mouth than trousers.”
And then grasping at a straw...... would it be feasible to develop the academy to contributing a further £7m net per annum from player sales......... mens and women's..... by somehow holding on to our young talent for longer.... for silly money...... rather than taking the first offer that came along.....?
i have a feeling CM said something about getting operating losses down to £6m this season previously, but I haven’t found it. Anyone else remember that?
He lives in West London and Charlton blood runs through his veins, he is/was a black cab driver.
Nice fella and his son is also a 100% Addick, often seen together at home and some away games….though I must admit I’ve not seen him for a while.
I find it very hard to believe that he would be involved in any shape or form with Spurs? 🧐
200 or so at Bolton away on a Tuesday, if it was Liverpool or Man City in a cup game, we sell out our allocation, regardless of it being on telly.
Same applies to teams visting the Valley, if you have the choice between TV or the 5 hour plus round trip, you'd opt for the telly most times, and I don't blame people.
The cure for that, is being a good football team. That's the harsh truth.
Many of the questions are always so idiotic it beggars belief.
Supporters have the opportunity to ask anything about the future of the club’s ambitions and very existence and we get questions about signs and food etc etc.