Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlie Methven: Global Football Partners have no plans to ‘flip’ Charlton Athletic
Comments
-
Everything revolves around results and what we’re delivering on the pitch. The marginals, whether that’s food, drink, fan zones, shop, hospitality really are just that if the team & manager can’t deliver, but can add to the day out if we can get them right, especially for those who are just starting to come along and see what a match day at Charlton is like.Airman Brown said:
That’s true and it’s something PV and I didn’t agree on. Waggott just repeated it.carly burn said:
Trumpeted by Waggott but Varney was also a big believer.Airman Brown said:
This is true. It was very hard to get people to come from 2008 onwards, although in the 90s it wasn’t primarily about the football. There was a strong narrative around the return and improvements to the facilities. Gates went up regardless of results. Fans were heavily engaged in this.MuttleyCAFC said:It is true that the biggest driver is the product. Basically a succesful team. Airman and the club did a great job boosting the support in the past but it couldn't have been done with the sort of performances we have delivered over the past decade. There has to be a wave to ride.
The club currently lacks any coherent narrative about its future and the lack of identity with its history within the management and ownership is part of the reason for that. New times, new methods, but the 90s board were in it heart and soul and no one doubted it. That was one reason they got so much buy in.
This doesn’t of itself make the current regime bad people, it’s just a handicap, but this season it’s all about promotion. I have listened to different people talking about tapping into the local market better for years, including a lot of guff about the population growth in the Thames Gateway as an opportunity, but houses and flats don’t attend matches.
We need a narrative that is about the club and rooted in its identity and strengths - and a better product.The “Thames Gateway growth” may not deliver thousands of new fans, but we shouldn’t ignore the potential to attract new fans. RBG seems to be building enough new homes to deliver the target for the whole of London at the moment, with hundreds going up within a 5-10 minute walk of the ground. It would be derelict of any management team, whether that’s PV & Waggot or Methven, not to try and encourage those new residents to The Valley.The same goes with the bid to attract more young fans. There is no one demographic at football these days. The only single driver of increasing attendance for all of them is good performances from the team. Around that you need different methods of raising awareness of the club and what a matchday can be like for the many varied fans we have and are trying to bring in. I won’t fault or criticise the club for producing marketing that doesn’t necessarily interest me. I want to see a few more of those empty seats filled as we move on now.11 -
Perhaps but if they come in the summer they may continue coming to the games if not the fan park, also we are (i assume) over 30, the younger generation wont be put off as much by the weather.ElfsborgAddick said:Radostanradical said:
No exactly that, you are right the point I'm making, maybe clumsily, is if a few (and there will always be some upset by any change) older fans get upset because the fanzone is too young, loud etc (also accepting as you said most dont care) the club is happy to make that trade off. Not to be seen as a whole exchange of older fans for younger fans.fenaddick said:
bang on the money until the very last bit in kyRadostanradical said:More to this i don't know how the "white" bit crept in but it obviously that the club is trying to attract a younger crowd, they literally created a section for 16-20 year olds. It makes sense from the club perspective to put effort in to attracting a younger crowd, those around 60 who attend arent likely to stop attending through choice but a significant amount probably wont be coming in ten, fifteen years time for a variety of reasons. It's not about not wanting a certain demographic as fans but attracting fans from other demographics and as a business if they fell there is more chance of making a profit from demographic A than B they will do so.
All this said its not that they wont older men as fans but more so they want to attract a younger fanbase who will spend money and if that means some of the older fans stop attending they are happy to make that trade off.
opinion. Don’t think they’re expecting the older fans to stop as nothing is being done to discourage them really, the fanzone doesn’t make a huge difference to older fans for example but is aimed at new younger fans
Whilst a good idea to bring fans to the games, I cannot imagine it being a success due to the weather.
Lastly we have to remember whilst the long term aim is to increase the attendance as much as possible its small steps, lets assume (and im being very liberal here) we were averaging 10k attendance last season if we increase by 500 thats still a 5% increase in attendance. We arent going to compete anytime soon with the big clubs in London even if we get in the premier league due to the global branding and infrastructure they have.1 -
Was it?DOUCHER said:
I thought it was somebody who referenced Maidstone, not Methven.0 -
I've never been convinced that people moving to Ebbsfleet for example, from London, were suddenly going to change their teams, cause they could get the train from Northfleet to Charlton for a game, when their existing London side was still easy to get to. Suspect other then via family link that we're not going to grow the club on fans in Dartford postcodes.
What I'm open to, is trying to get the communities in SE7, 9, 10 and 18 to think of Charlton as their club, and that the Valley is a place they can go to.7 -
Completely right Tel, catering to attract or make something more accessible doesnt mean they dont want the fans that are already there because those of us who attend week in week out have already bought in.TelMc32 said:
Everything revolves around results and what we’re delivering on the pitch. The marginals, whether that’s food, drink, fan zones, shop, hospitality really are just that if the team & manager can’t deliver, but can add to the day out if we can get them right, especially for those who are just starting to come along and see what a match day at Charlton is like.Airman Brown said:
That’s true and it’s something PV and I didn’t agree on. Waggott just repeated it.carly burn said:
Trumpeted by Waggott but Varney was also a big believer.Airman Brown said:
This is true. It was very hard to get people to come from 2008 onwards, although in the 90s it wasn’t primarily about the football. There was a strong narrative around the return and improvements to the facilities. Gates went up regardless of results. Fans were heavily engaged in this.MuttleyCAFC said:It is true that the biggest driver is the product. Basically a succesful team. Airman and the club did a great job boosting the support in the past but it couldn't have been done with the sort of performances we have delivered over the past decade. There has to be a wave to ride.
The club currently lacks any coherent narrative about its future and the lack of identity with its history within the management and ownership is part of the reason for that. New times, new methods, but the 90s board were in it heart and soul and no one doubted it. That was one reason they got so much buy in.
This doesn’t of itself make the current regime bad people, it’s just a handicap, but this season it’s all about promotion. I have listened to different people talking about tapping into the local market better for years, including a lot of guff about the population growth in the Thames Gateway as an opportunity, but houses and flats don’t attend matches.
We need a narrative that is about the club and rooted in its identity and strengths - and a better product.The “Thames Gateway growth” may not deliver thousands of new fans, but we shouldn’t ignore the potential to attract new fans. RBG seems to be building enough new homes to deliver the target for the whole of London at the moment, with hundreds going up within a 5-10 minute walk of the ground. It would be derelict of any management team, whether that’s PV & Waggot or Methven, not to try and encourage those new residents to The Valley.The same goes with the bid to attract more young fans. There is no one demographic at football these days. The only single driver of increasing attendance for all of them is good performances from the team. Around that you need different methods of raising awareness of the club and what a matchday can be like for the many varied fans we have and are trying to bring in. I won’t fault or criticise the club for producing marketing that doesn’t necessarily interest me. I want to see a few more of those empty seats filled as we move on now.
I mentioned previously if i go to a restaurant and see a wheelchair ramp I don't assume they don't me to eat there, they just want to make it more likely everyone can go.3 -
Thank you.PragueAddick said:
A few years ago when I was on the Supporters Trust board I was able to visit Erik Samuelson the then CEO of AFC Wimbledon, a very good guy with a career at Deloitte behind him, to understand and write up their fan ownership model. He went into generous detail about their budgetting, and then explained that the EFL clubs had agreed to share a spreadsheet showing the budget each club had allocated to player remuneration for the season. As I recall, the figures were previous season actual. I was very pleasantly surprised to learn this. He turned his laptop towards me just long enough to see it existed but not long enough to absorb any figures, it being P&C of course. It allowed Erik (and the others) to set a wage budget which corresponded to a position in the league table they targetted to finish on, i.e. in their case, 4th lowest wage budget, and then their manager had a clear goal - finish 5th lowest (with a bonus for doing so,) and keeping them up. It is shared only by division, so some guesswork is needed regarding relegated and promoted clubs, but it is official and a surprising example of how EFL clubs can work in the collective interest if they put their minds to it.valleynick66 said:
What is shared ?Henry Irving said:
Because the budgets are submitted to the EFL and shared across the clubs in that divisionvalleynick66 said:
So the infrastructure stuff you allude to is as you say within the operating costs / losses. I agree.Henry Irving said:
Not really.valleynick66 said:
Difference between undisclosed and a ‘caveated’ figure in my view.cafcfan said:
Well, the actual deal has to be lodged with the EFL.valleynick66 said:
Agreed. But I don’t really know why as I’ve understood it’s an open secret within football circles and it’s only the fans who have to fill in the blanks.Scoham said:
No don’t think so, but we’ve been doing it consistently since the Slater/Jimenez years and the majority of other clubs do the same.valleynick66 said:Did he comment on why transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’ yet happy to share how much money we lose?Just curious as to me it is a barometer of true cash investment.
Aside from that I suspect the complexities make most deals almost unfathomable in terms of cash paid. And any headline fee would be likely to be as accurate as a political party's election manifesto. There's so many clauses, matches played, promotion achieved, goals scored, international appearances, phased payments over the period of a contract and sell-on clauses.
Then should you also include release clauses, buy-out clauses, image rights clauses, signing-on bonuses, loyalty bonuses, etc, that feature as part of a player's contract?
Just as an example, Martial from AS Monaco to Man Utd back in 2015:
A headline fee of €50mn, to be paid in two installments of €20mn up front and €30mn the following year. Plus €10mn if he scored 25 goals during the period of his contract; €10mn if he played 25 games for France; and €10mn if he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or plus other clauses in the event of his onward sale for a fee between €60mn and €100mn meaning Monaco got 50% of the difference.
Edited to add: Martial still hasn't got a club, if we're interested.Still think it shows true investment if more details are shared.
Investment isn't just player fees.
Wages, infrastructure, non-playing staff
Eventually the investment ie losses are shown in the accounts anyway.
And as has been said if it has been agreed between the two clubs that it is not to be revealed it would be damaging to do so.That is hidden to some extent by the constant restructuring of staffing / outsourcing etc. Also when its staff it can relatively quickly be reversed subject to redundancies etc.
We also know the ‘pitch’ spend for us was mostly from a grant.I’m merely making the point that confirmed player spend is a more tangible figure to observe.I don’t agree it’s ‘damaging’ to know the transfer fees as I understand these things are well understood within and between football clubs. But I may be wrong.Do you know for sure fees are not really known by any clubs outside of the 2 directly involved in a transfer? Otherwise how do we know we have the 4th biggest budget etc?The financial forecast or something else? Budget needs more definition for me to get the point you are making.So if I understand correctly they share at an early point in the close season last years spend on wages and bonuses / fees (to players) Assumption being they will spend similar again or others will see what it potentially takes to achieve a certain league position.
Do you know if I am right with my understanding transfer fees are also an open secret amongst clubs (which was my original point being challenged ) ? Or am I wrong with that assumption ?0 -
I'm all for any initiatives that encourage more fans to attend, however old or whatever colour, more the merrier but i think the biggest gains are gonna come from peeling back the floaters / potentials that we may have lost predominantly to Millwall and West Ham and to a lesser degree, Bromley and even Palace. Other than the 'yoof' development angle, i think once we get a team that will attract people, the Valley is the other big draw. West Ham's ground is dreadful for fans, most of Millwalls' fans probably live closer to the Valley and so on. An upturn in team performance closer or above our rivals and our ground has the edge for the floater / newbie. Tapping into the 'new demographic' shall we say, may be a lot harder.2
-
I read Prague's comment as they say "We spent X on wages, fees, bonuses & transfer fees"valleynick66 said:
Thank you.PragueAddick said:
A few years ago when I was on the Supporters Trust board I was able to visit Erik Samuelson the then CEO of AFC Wimbledon, a very good guy with a career at Deloitte behind him, to understand and write up their fan ownership model. He went into generous detail about their budgetting, and then explained that the EFL clubs had agreed to share a spreadsheet showing the budget each club had allocated to player remuneration for the season. As I recall, the figures were previous season actual. I was very pleasantly surprised to learn this. He turned his laptop towards me just long enough to see it existed but not long enough to absorb any figures, it being P&C of course. It allowed Erik (and the others) to set a wage budget which corresponded to a position in the league table they targetted to finish on, i.e. in their case, 4th lowest wage budget, and then their manager had a clear goal - finish 5th lowest (with a bonus for doing so,) and keeping them up. It is shared only by division, so some guesswork is needed regarding relegated and promoted clubs, but it is official and a surprising example of how EFL clubs can work in the collective interest if they put their minds to it.valleynick66 said:
What is shared ?Henry Irving said:
Because the budgets are submitted to the EFL and shared across the clubs in that divisionvalleynick66 said:
So the infrastructure stuff you allude to is as you say within the operating costs / losses. I agree.Henry Irving said:
Not really.valleynick66 said:
Difference between undisclosed and a ‘caveated’ figure in my view.cafcfan said:
Well, the actual deal has to be lodged with the EFL.valleynick66 said:
Agreed. But I don’t really know why as I’ve understood it’s an open secret within football circles and it’s only the fans who have to fill in the blanks.Scoham said:
No don’t think so, but we’ve been doing it consistently since the Slater/Jimenez years and the majority of other clubs do the same.valleynick66 said:Did he comment on why transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’ yet happy to share how much money we lose?Just curious as to me it is a barometer of true cash investment.
Aside from that I suspect the complexities make most deals almost unfathomable in terms of cash paid. And any headline fee would be likely to be as accurate as a political party's election manifesto. There's so many clauses, matches played, promotion achieved, goals scored, international appearances, phased payments over the period of a contract and sell-on clauses.
Then should you also include release clauses, buy-out clauses, image rights clauses, signing-on bonuses, loyalty bonuses, etc, that feature as part of a player's contract?
Just as an example, Martial from AS Monaco to Man Utd back in 2015:
A headline fee of €50mn, to be paid in two installments of €20mn up front and €30mn the following year. Plus €10mn if he scored 25 goals during the period of his contract; €10mn if he played 25 games for France; and €10mn if he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or plus other clauses in the event of his onward sale for a fee between €60mn and €100mn meaning Monaco got 50% of the difference.
Edited to add: Martial still hasn't got a club, if we're interested.Still think it shows true investment if more details are shared.
Investment isn't just player fees.
Wages, infrastructure, non-playing staff
Eventually the investment ie losses are shown in the accounts anyway.
And as has been said if it has been agreed between the two clubs that it is not to be revealed it would be damaging to do so.That is hidden to some extent by the constant restructuring of staffing / outsourcing etc. Also when its staff it can relatively quickly be reversed subject to redundancies etc.
We also know the ‘pitch’ spend for us was mostly from a grant.I’m merely making the point that confirmed player spend is a more tangible figure to observe.I don’t agree it’s ‘damaging’ to know the transfer fees as I understand these things are well understood within and between football clubs. But I may be wrong.Do you know for sure fees are not really known by any clubs outside of the 2 directly involved in a transfer? Otherwise how do we know we have the 4th biggest budget etc?The financial forecast or something else? Budget needs more definition for me to get the point you are making.So if I understand correctly they share at an early point in the close season last years spend on wages and bonuses / fees (to players) Assumption being they will spend similar again or others will see what it potentially takes to achieve a certain league position.
Do you know if I am right with my understanding transfer fees are also an open secret amongst clubs (which was my original point being challenged ) ? Or am I wrong with that assumption ?0 -
I can't answer your question with any authority. However by coincidence last week I checked with Kieran Maguire (Price of Football) whether the syndication of info was still going on, and he confirmed it was - but also said there is more informal info-sharing between club CEOs on What's App, with conversations of a "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" nature (his usual colourful description) so we might assume that this channel allows for some discussion about fees. I'm not sure the clubs would feel it in their interest to routinely syndicate all their transfer fee info.valleynick66 said:
Thank you.PragueAddick said:
A few years ago when I was on the Supporters Trust board I was able to visit Erik Samuelson the then CEO of AFC Wimbledon, a very good guy with a career at Deloitte behind him, to understand and write up their fan ownership model. He went into generous detail about their budgetting, and then explained that the EFL clubs had agreed to share a spreadsheet showing the budget each club had allocated to player remuneration for the season. As I recall, the figures were previous season actual. I was very pleasantly surprised to learn this. He turned his laptop towards me just long enough to see it existed but not long enough to absorb any figures, it being P&C of course. It allowed Erik (and the others) to set a wage budget which corresponded to a position in the league table they targetted to finish on, i.e. in their case, 4th lowest wage budget, and then their manager had a clear goal - finish 5th lowest (with a bonus for doing so,) and keeping them up. It is shared only by division, so some guesswork is needed regarding relegated and promoted clubs, but it is official and a surprising example of how EFL clubs can work in the collective interest if they put their minds to it.valleynick66 said:
What is shared ?Henry Irving said:
Because the budgets are submitted to the EFL and shared across the clubs in that divisionvalleynick66 said:
So the infrastructure stuff you allude to is as you say within the operating costs / losses. I agree.Henry Irving said:
Not really.valleynick66 said:
Difference between undisclosed and a ‘caveated’ figure in my view.cafcfan said:
Well, the actual deal has to be lodged with the EFL.valleynick66 said:
Agreed. But I don’t really know why as I’ve understood it’s an open secret within football circles and it’s only the fans who have to fill in the blanks.Scoham said:
No don’t think so, but we’ve been doing it consistently since the Slater/Jimenez years and the majority of other clubs do the same.valleynick66 said:Did he comment on why transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’ yet happy to share how much money we lose?Just curious as to me it is a barometer of true cash investment.
Aside from that I suspect the complexities make most deals almost unfathomable in terms of cash paid. And any headline fee would be likely to be as accurate as a political party's election manifesto. There's so many clauses, matches played, promotion achieved, goals scored, international appearances, phased payments over the period of a contract and sell-on clauses.
Then should you also include release clauses, buy-out clauses, image rights clauses, signing-on bonuses, loyalty bonuses, etc, that feature as part of a player's contract?
Just as an example, Martial from AS Monaco to Man Utd back in 2015:
A headline fee of €50mn, to be paid in two installments of €20mn up front and €30mn the following year. Plus €10mn if he scored 25 goals during the period of his contract; €10mn if he played 25 games for France; and €10mn if he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or plus other clauses in the event of his onward sale for a fee between €60mn and €100mn meaning Monaco got 50% of the difference.
Edited to add: Martial still hasn't got a club, if we're interested.Still think it shows true investment if more details are shared.
Investment isn't just player fees.
Wages, infrastructure, non-playing staff
Eventually the investment ie losses are shown in the accounts anyway.
And as has been said if it has been agreed between the two clubs that it is not to be revealed it would be damaging to do so.That is hidden to some extent by the constant restructuring of staffing / outsourcing etc. Also when its staff it can relatively quickly be reversed subject to redundancies etc.
We also know the ‘pitch’ spend for us was mostly from a grant.I’m merely making the point that confirmed player spend is a more tangible figure to observe.I don’t agree it’s ‘damaging’ to know the transfer fees as I understand these things are well understood within and between football clubs. But I may be wrong.Do you know for sure fees are not really known by any clubs outside of the 2 directly involved in a transfer? Otherwise how do we know we have the 4th biggest budget etc?The financial forecast or something else? Budget needs more definition for me to get the point you are making.So if I understand correctly they share at an early point in the close season last years spend on wages and bonuses / fees (to players) Assumption being they will spend similar again or others will see what it potentially takes to achieve a certain league position.
Do you know if I am right with my understanding transfer fees are also an open secret amongst clubs (which was my original point being challenged ) ? Or am I wrong with that assumption ?
@fenaddick no, you didn't quite take out what I intended. The clubs share a specific cost line in the budget for wages. Not transfer fees, although I am wondering about amortisation of fees, which become an expense on the P&L. I'll see if I can dig out the article and check whether there's anything more concrete I learnt at the time.2 -
Update re the salary info syndication, having found my article.
The individual clubs are not actually named in the table. Which makes sense. A club still knows where they stand overall in terms of the "wage league table". I remember him saying that it's not too difficult to guess who the big boys are in that table, and of course they will all try to guess.
Also, Erik Samuelson was ex PwC, not Deloitte.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
As apologies go, that's not one.sam3110 said:Well in my defence, this forum is full of thinly veiled racism as it is, and after other people mentioning black people being the local demographic, and how it differs to the attending demographic of our club, your comment on the back of it, about local youth all carrying knives and needing amnesty bins at The Valley, it isn't a massive stretch to connect the dots is it?
Would you like to try again?2 -
Thanks for sharing that Prague. I always wondered how managers were so confident when saying they are the 4th biggest spender in league etc.PragueAddick said:Update re the salary info syndication, having found my article.
The individual clubs are not actually named in the table. Which makes sense. A club still knows where they stand overall in terms of the "wage league table". I remember him saying that it's not too difficult to guess who the big boys are in that table, and of course they will all try to guess.
Also, Erik Samuelson was ex PwC, not Deloitte.1 -
Charlie and Gavin Carter at Bromley Addicks on 3 October0
-
To my point on ‘undisclosed’ fees I note the Birmingham signing of Stansfield has this label yet everyone seems confident it is a £10m+ deal.fenaddick said:
I read Prague's comment as they say "We spent X on wages, fees, bonuses & transfer fees"valleynick66 said:
Thank you.PragueAddick said:
A few years ago when I was on the Supporters Trust board I was able to visit Erik Samuelson the then CEO of AFC Wimbledon, a very good guy with a career at Deloitte behind him, to understand and write up their fan ownership model. He went into generous detail about their budgetting, and then explained that the EFL clubs had agreed to share a spreadsheet showing the budget each club had allocated to player remuneration for the season. As I recall, the figures were previous season actual. I was very pleasantly surprised to learn this. He turned his laptop towards me just long enough to see it existed but not long enough to absorb any figures, it being P&C of course. It allowed Erik (and the others) to set a wage budget which corresponded to a position in the league table they targetted to finish on, i.e. in their case, 4th lowest wage budget, and then their manager had a clear goal - finish 5th lowest (with a bonus for doing so,) and keeping them up. It is shared only by division, so some guesswork is needed regarding relegated and promoted clubs, but it is official and a surprising example of how EFL clubs can work in the collective interest if they put their minds to it.valleynick66 said:
What is shared ?Henry Irving said:
Because the budgets are submitted to the EFL and shared across the clubs in that divisionvalleynick66 said:
So the infrastructure stuff you allude to is as you say within the operating costs / losses. I agree.Henry Irving said:
Not really.valleynick66 said:
Difference between undisclosed and a ‘caveated’ figure in my view.cafcfan said:
Well, the actual deal has to be lodged with the EFL.valleynick66 said:
Agreed. But I don’t really know why as I’ve understood it’s an open secret within football circles and it’s only the fans who have to fill in the blanks.Scoham said:
No don’t think so, but we’ve been doing it consistently since the Slater/Jimenez years and the majority of other clubs do the same.valleynick66 said:Did he comment on why transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’ yet happy to share how much money we lose?Just curious as to me it is a barometer of true cash investment.
Aside from that I suspect the complexities make most deals almost unfathomable in terms of cash paid. And any headline fee would be likely to be as accurate as a political party's election manifesto. There's so many clauses, matches played, promotion achieved, goals scored, international appearances, phased payments over the period of a contract and sell-on clauses.
Then should you also include release clauses, buy-out clauses, image rights clauses, signing-on bonuses, loyalty bonuses, etc, that feature as part of a player's contract?
Just as an example, Martial from AS Monaco to Man Utd back in 2015:
A headline fee of €50mn, to be paid in two installments of €20mn up front and €30mn the following year. Plus €10mn if he scored 25 goals during the period of his contract; €10mn if he played 25 games for France; and €10mn if he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or plus other clauses in the event of his onward sale for a fee between €60mn and €100mn meaning Monaco got 50% of the difference.
Edited to add: Martial still hasn't got a club, if we're interested.Still think it shows true investment if more details are shared.
Investment isn't just player fees.
Wages, infrastructure, non-playing staff
Eventually the investment ie losses are shown in the accounts anyway.
And as has been said if it has been agreed between the two clubs that it is not to be revealed it would be damaging to do so.That is hidden to some extent by the constant restructuring of staffing / outsourcing etc. Also when its staff it can relatively quickly be reversed subject to redundancies etc.
We also know the ‘pitch’ spend for us was mostly from a grant.I’m merely making the point that confirmed player spend is a more tangible figure to observe.I don’t agree it’s ‘damaging’ to know the transfer fees as I understand these things are well understood within and between football clubs. But I may be wrong.Do you know for sure fees are not really known by any clubs outside of the 2 directly involved in a transfer? Otherwise how do we know we have the 4th biggest budget etc?The financial forecast or something else? Budget needs more definition for me to get the point you are making.So if I understand correctly they share at an early point in the close season last years spend on wages and bonuses / fees (to players) Assumption being they will spend similar again or others will see what it potentially takes to achieve a certain league position.
Do you know if I am right with my understanding transfer fees are also an open secret amongst clubs (which was my original point being challenged ) ? Or am I wrong with that assumption ?0 -
A lot of times when it's undisclosed, the fee is only rumoured between fans and sources, but Stansfield fee has been confirmed by most newspapers and Sky Sports as £15m with £5m add ons. Odd that Birmingham have bothered to say undisclosed when it's clear what the fee was.valleynick66 said:
To my point on ‘undisclosed’ fees I note the Birmingham signing of Stansfield has this label yet everyone seems confident it is a £10m+ deal.fenaddick said:
I read Prague's comment as they say "We spent X on wages, fees, bonuses & transfer fees"valleynick66 said:
Thank you.PragueAddick said:
A few years ago when I was on the Supporters Trust board I was able to visit Erik Samuelson the then CEO of AFC Wimbledon, a very good guy with a career at Deloitte behind him, to understand and write up their fan ownership model. He went into generous detail about their budgetting, and then explained that the EFL clubs had agreed to share a spreadsheet showing the budget each club had allocated to player remuneration for the season. As I recall, the figures were previous season actual. I was very pleasantly surprised to learn this. He turned his laptop towards me just long enough to see it existed but not long enough to absorb any figures, it being P&C of course. It allowed Erik (and the others) to set a wage budget which corresponded to a position in the league table they targetted to finish on, i.e. in their case, 4th lowest wage budget, and then their manager had a clear goal - finish 5th lowest (with a bonus for doing so,) and keeping them up. It is shared only by division, so some guesswork is needed regarding relegated and promoted clubs, but it is official and a surprising example of how EFL clubs can work in the collective interest if they put their minds to it.valleynick66 said:
What is shared ?Henry Irving said:
Because the budgets are submitted to the EFL and shared across the clubs in that divisionvalleynick66 said:
So the infrastructure stuff you allude to is as you say within the operating costs / losses. I agree.Henry Irving said:
Not really.valleynick66 said:
Difference between undisclosed and a ‘caveated’ figure in my view.cafcfan said:
Well, the actual deal has to be lodged with the EFL.valleynick66 said:
Agreed. But I don’t really know why as I’ve understood it’s an open secret within football circles and it’s only the fans who have to fill in the blanks.Scoham said:
No don’t think so, but we’ve been doing it consistently since the Slater/Jimenez years and the majority of other clubs do the same.valleynick66 said:Did he comment on why transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’ yet happy to share how much money we lose?Just curious as to me it is a barometer of true cash investment.
Aside from that I suspect the complexities make most deals almost unfathomable in terms of cash paid. And any headline fee would be likely to be as accurate as a political party's election manifesto. There's so many clauses, matches played, promotion achieved, goals scored, international appearances, phased payments over the period of a contract and sell-on clauses.
Then should you also include release clauses, buy-out clauses, image rights clauses, signing-on bonuses, loyalty bonuses, etc, that feature as part of a player's contract?
Just as an example, Martial from AS Monaco to Man Utd back in 2015:
A headline fee of €50mn, to be paid in two installments of €20mn up front and €30mn the following year. Plus €10mn if he scored 25 goals during the period of his contract; €10mn if he played 25 games for France; and €10mn if he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or plus other clauses in the event of his onward sale for a fee between €60mn and €100mn meaning Monaco got 50% of the difference.
Edited to add: Martial still hasn't got a club, if we're interested.Still think it shows true investment if more details are shared.
Investment isn't just player fees.
Wages, infrastructure, non-playing staff
Eventually the investment ie losses are shown in the accounts anyway.
And as has been said if it has been agreed between the two clubs that it is not to be revealed it would be damaging to do so.That is hidden to some extent by the constant restructuring of staffing / outsourcing etc. Also when its staff it can relatively quickly be reversed subject to redundancies etc.
We also know the ‘pitch’ spend for us was mostly from a grant.I’m merely making the point that confirmed player spend is a more tangible figure to observe.I don’t agree it’s ‘damaging’ to know the transfer fees as I understand these things are well understood within and between football clubs. But I may be wrong.Do you know for sure fees are not really known by any clubs outside of the 2 directly involved in a transfer? Otherwise how do we know we have the 4th biggest budget etc?The financial forecast or something else? Budget needs more definition for me to get the point you are making.So if I understand correctly they share at an early point in the close season last years spend on wages and bonuses / fees (to players) Assumption being they will spend similar again or others will see what it potentially takes to achieve a certain league position.
Do you know if I am right with my understanding transfer fees are also an open secret amongst clubs (which was my original point being challenged ) ? Or am I wrong with that assumption ?0 -
My hunch is that they want to say undisclosed so that Birmingham can downplay it a bit if it doesn’t go well but both sides actually want the fee out there. Brum to say “look at us, we have deep pockets” and Fulham to say “look at this incredible deal we negotiated for a squad player”stoneroses19 said:
A lot of times when it's undisclosed, the fee is only rumoured between fans and sources, but Stansfield fee has been confirmed by most newspapers and Sky Sports as £15m with £5m add ons. Odd that Birmingham have bothered to say undisclosed when it's clear what the fee was.valleynick66 said:
To my point on ‘undisclosed’ fees I note the Birmingham signing of Stansfield has this label yet everyone seems confident it is a £10m+ deal.fenaddick said:
I read Prague's comment as they say "We spent X on wages, fees, bonuses & transfer fees"valleynick66 said:
Thank you.PragueAddick said:
A few years ago when I was on the Supporters Trust board I was able to visit Erik Samuelson the then CEO of AFC Wimbledon, a very good guy with a career at Deloitte behind him, to understand and write up their fan ownership model. He went into generous detail about their budgetting, and then explained that the EFL clubs had agreed to share a spreadsheet showing the budget each club had allocated to player remuneration for the season. As I recall, the figures were previous season actual. I was very pleasantly surprised to learn this. He turned his laptop towards me just long enough to see it existed but not long enough to absorb any figures, it being P&C of course. It allowed Erik (and the others) to set a wage budget which corresponded to a position in the league table they targetted to finish on, i.e. in their case, 4th lowest wage budget, and then their manager had a clear goal - finish 5th lowest (with a bonus for doing so,) and keeping them up. It is shared only by division, so some guesswork is needed regarding relegated and promoted clubs, but it is official and a surprising example of how EFL clubs can work in the collective interest if they put their minds to it.valleynick66 said:
What is shared ?Henry Irving said:
Because the budgets are submitted to the EFL and shared across the clubs in that divisionvalleynick66 said:
So the infrastructure stuff you allude to is as you say within the operating costs / losses. I agree.Henry Irving said:
Not really.valleynick66 said:
Difference between undisclosed and a ‘caveated’ figure in my view.cafcfan said:
Well, the actual deal has to be lodged with the EFL.valleynick66 said:
Agreed. But I don’t really know why as I’ve understood it’s an open secret within football circles and it’s only the fans who have to fill in the blanks.Scoham said:
No don’t think so, but we’ve been doing it consistently since the Slater/Jimenez years and the majority of other clubs do the same.valleynick66 said:Did he comment on why transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’ yet happy to share how much money we lose?Just curious as to me it is a barometer of true cash investment.
Aside from that I suspect the complexities make most deals almost unfathomable in terms of cash paid. And any headline fee would be likely to be as accurate as a political party's election manifesto. There's so many clauses, matches played, promotion achieved, goals scored, international appearances, phased payments over the period of a contract and sell-on clauses.
Then should you also include release clauses, buy-out clauses, image rights clauses, signing-on bonuses, loyalty bonuses, etc, that feature as part of a player's contract?
Just as an example, Martial from AS Monaco to Man Utd back in 2015:
A headline fee of €50mn, to be paid in two installments of €20mn up front and €30mn the following year. Plus €10mn if he scored 25 goals during the period of his contract; €10mn if he played 25 games for France; and €10mn if he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or plus other clauses in the event of his onward sale for a fee between €60mn and €100mn meaning Monaco got 50% of the difference.
Edited to add: Martial still hasn't got a club, if we're interested.Still think it shows true investment if more details are shared.
Investment isn't just player fees.
Wages, infrastructure, non-playing staff
Eventually the investment ie losses are shown in the accounts anyway.
And as has been said if it has been agreed between the two clubs that it is not to be revealed it would be damaging to do so.That is hidden to some extent by the constant restructuring of staffing / outsourcing etc. Also when its staff it can relatively quickly be reversed subject to redundancies etc.
We also know the ‘pitch’ spend for us was mostly from a grant.I’m merely making the point that confirmed player spend is a more tangible figure to observe.I don’t agree it’s ‘damaging’ to know the transfer fees as I understand these things are well understood within and between football clubs. But I may be wrong.Do you know for sure fees are not really known by any clubs outside of the 2 directly involved in a transfer? Otherwise how do we know we have the 4th biggest budget etc?The financial forecast or something else? Budget needs more definition for me to get the point you are making.So if I understand correctly they share at an early point in the close season last years spend on wages and bonuses / fees (to players) Assumption being they will spend similar again or others will see what it potentially takes to achieve a certain league position.
Do you know if I am right with my understanding transfer fees are also an open secret amongst clubs (which was my original point being challenged ) ? Or am I wrong with that assumption ?1 -
Well, if they were they were likely going to change to West Ham, as they can get there much quicker.Rothko said:I've never been convinced that people moving to Ebbsfleet for example, from London, were suddenly going to change their teams, cause they could get the train from Northfleet to Charlton for a game, when their existing London side was still easy to get to. Suspect other then via family link that we're not going to grow the club on fans in Dartford postcodes.
What I'm open to, is trying to get the communities in SE7, 9, 10 and 18 to think of Charlton as their club, and that the Valley is a place they can go to.
I agree that new homes doesn’t mean new people. It’s obviously statistically likely that the more people live in an area the more you can attract with a winning offer, but we have never suffered from a limited population - unlike many provincial clubs up to and including the Premier League. Greenwich had plenty of residents in the early 1970s and the early 1980s. People didn’t come because the offer was rubbish.One problem is the level of competition in London; another is population drift. The club has always marketed itself in the local area in all sorts of ways, not least through the community trust. Where it has withdrawn is beyond that. You can do both, but pushing into London or across London isn’t realistic - because London doesn’t work like that.5 -
I think both can be true. In general I agree with you this forum is wonderful and accepting. The majority of people on here are exactly as you say. But there are examples (not as rare as we would like) of certain posters showing thinly veiled racism. Full of is a bit far but it's there.ValleyGary said:Of all the forums on the internet, I’d say this is one of the most accepting, understanding and least judgmental. To start projecting full of thinly veiled racism is a fucking joke.
Moronic. You got your likes tho.6 -
You say ‘in general’ and that is probably true.cantersaddick said:
I think both can be true. In general I agree with you this forum is wonderful and accepting. The majority of people on here are exactly as you say. But there are examples (not as rare as we would like) of certain posters showing thinly veiled racism. Full of is a bit far but it's there.ValleyGary said:Of all the forums on the internet, I’d say this is one of the most accepting, understanding and least judgmental. To start projecting full of thinly veiled racism is a fucking joke.
Moronic. You got your likes tho.
However like most forums (fora?) there are those who can’t accept others, or that there is a broad range of characters here, and make personal attacks instead of reacting to the detail of what is actually said.
In addition the ‘thinly veiled’ racism is certainly there and is regrettable, but the misogyny is not thinly veiled in my view, and it is in evidence in a lot of threads.
Maybe other places are even worse than Charlton Life.5 -
Another podcast from Charlie boy https://youtu.be/8_JXduVaT7o?si=BBfbqcLE5ejwIRCQ0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Looks like ACA Football Partners have officially sold their shares in the club in Belgium.
https://x.com/ACAFootballPart/status/1844703558802743526
1 -
Also when you click on our badge on their website it takes you to a ENEVO Football Group webpage. There's no info on it to fair but could it mean they are selling all of their football shares to this company?
Here's the redirected page from the ACA Partners website - https://enevofootballgroup.com/our-clubs/charlton-athletic-fc
Here's ENEVO website looks like they are a big energy company - https://enevogroup.com/#enevo-group
There could be nothing in any of this though lol.0 -
5
-
Good spot. The website had a page for each club until recently so it’s a new change. One to keep an eye on.CAFCBill said:Also when you click on our badge on their website it takes you to a ENEVO Football Group webpage. There's no info on it to fair but could it mean they are selling all of their football shares to this company?
Here's the redirected page from the ACA Partners website - https://enevofootballgroup.com/our-clubs/charlton-athletic-fc
Here's ENEVO website looks like they are a big energy company - https://enevogroup.com/#enevo-group
There could be nothing in any of this though lol.1 -
.0
-
When you click the link for EnevoFootballGroup, all there is on the page is a link to contact them. The link then opens up your mail app and lists the contact as yu.kaneko@acafp.com so more likely ACA are rebranding or liquidating and starting again under a different company name. Doesn't seem to be anything to link it to the energy company of the same name.CAFCBill said:Also when you click on our badge on their website it takes you to a ENEVO Football Group webpage. There's no info on it to fair but could it mean they are selling all of their football shares to this company?
Here's the redirected page from the ACA Partners website - https://enevofootballgroup.com/our-clubs/charlton-athletic-fc
Here's ENEVO website looks like they are a big energy company - https://enevogroup.com/#enevo-group
There could be nothing in any of this though lol.2 -
I can still find us on their websiteScoham said:
Good spot. The website had a page for each club until recently so it’s a new change. One to keep an eye on.CAFCBill said:Also when you click on our badge on their website it takes you to a ENEVO Football Group webpage. There's no info on it to fair but could it mean they are selling all of their football shares to this company?
Here's the redirected page from the ACA Partners website - https://enevofootballgroup.com/our-clubs/charlton-athletic-fc
Here's ENEVO website looks like they are a big energy company - https://enevogroup.com/#enevo-group
There could be nothing in any of this though lol.
https://acafp.com/our-clubs/charlton-athletic-fc/
1
