Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
CHARLTON SIGN NEW CEO - DANE MURPHY (p13. Oh no they don’t)
Comments
-
eastterrace6168 said:
Just like that, ain't life just a bowl of cherries...bobmunro said:eastterrace6168 said:
So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.swordfish said:
I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?
Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷♂️
Or extend the lease.
I was just expressing another option other than buying The Valley or being homeless. Where did I indicate it would be easy?3 -
I doubt that.AFKABartram said:
My thinking was the ‘cost’ would be the back of shirt sponsorship and related advertising package.Henry Irving said:valleynick66 said:
Based on the ‘sustainable’ comment by GC.Henry Irving said:
Is it? You've seen the budget for this coming season then?valleynick66 said:
Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine.I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else.Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news.
You said the same, constantly, for last season when we had the 4th or 5th biggest budget in the division.You are focussing on the wrong part of my post though. I’m curious what they fundamentally fell out over.
The new floodlights are another example of the club spending money rather than kicking that can down the road as has happened too often recently.
.
Back of shorts sponsorship is minimal and less that the 100ks a whole new system would cost.
@Swisdom
@Swisdom might know more0 -
For the first time in donkeys I’m confident that the club is being run by people that actually know what they’re doing. Our budget will have been discussed with Jones and he feels comfortable enough with it to commit five years of his life to “the journey”. I think realistically we’ll be looking down and not up next season but will have enough about us to survive and build. Relegation would be a disaster and I’m 100% confident that our owners haven’t got where they’ve gotten by not speculating to accumulate when it makes sense. I’d suggest that Charlton find themselves in a unique (?) position of going up with two other teams that are being tipped as promotion contenders and not relegation. That makes our season just a bit harder I’d say.10
-
To be fair what else is RD going to do? He can’t realistically sell it from under us. Last I heard there were some discussions with a third party about a potential sale that would have resulted in them having some stake in the club alongside a long term lease. That came from CM so make of it what you will. Either way that was over a year ago and heard nothing since so assume it died a death.eastterrace6168 said:
Just like that, ain't life just a bowl of cherries...bobmunro said:eastterrace6168 said:
So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.swordfish said:
I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?
Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷♂️
Or extend the lease.0 -
You didn't express anything of the sort Bob, it was just an expression of frustration on my part against DuChat's, extending the lease is surely the last option on our part, we need the realestate to be able to move forward as a club regarding generating finances and making improvements/stand extensions etc that we wish going forward and hopefully up the ladder...bobmunro said:eastterrace6168 said:
Just like that, ain't life just a bowl of cherries...bobmunro said:eastterrace6168 said:
So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.swordfish said:
I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?
Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷♂️
Or extend the lease.
I was just expressing another option other than buying The Valley or being homeless. Where did I indicate it would be easy?2 -
eastterrace6168 said:
You didn't express anything of the sort Bob, it was just an expression of frustration on my part against DuChat's, extending the lease is surely the last option on our part, we need the realestate to be able to move forward as a club regarding generating finances and making improvements/stand extensions etc that we wish going forward and hopefully up the ladder...bobmunro said:eastterrace6168 said:
Just like that, ain't life just a bowl of cherries...bobmunro said:eastterrace6168 said:
So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.swordfish said:
I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?
Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷♂️
Or extend the lease.
I was just expressing another option other than buying The Valley or being homeless. Where did I indicate it would be easy?
It's the second best of the three options, but in the short to medium term probably the most realistic, and security of tenure for more than what's left on the current lease is critical. The end game though has to be to unite The Valley with the club in some way or another that is financially doable.5 -
Agree Bob, so let's just see how things progress, can't see DuChat's doing anything more than increasing the rent as we progress up the ladder, ASAP with the purchase is the name of the game though...bobmunro said:eastterrace6168 said:
You didn't express anything of the sort Bob, it was just an expression of frustration on my part against DuChat's, extending the lease is surely the last option on our part, we need the realestate to be able to move forward as a club regarding generating finances and making improvements/stand extensions etc that we wish going forward and hopefully up the ladder...bobmunro said:eastterrace6168 said:
Just like that, ain't life just a bowl of cherries...bobmunro said:eastterrace6168 said:
So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.swordfish said:
I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?
Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷♂️
Or extend the lease.
I was just expressing another option other than buying The Valley or being homeless. Where did I indicate it would be easy?
It's the second best of the three options, but in the short to medium term probably the most realistic, and security of tenure for more than what's left on the current lease is critical. The end game though has to be to unite The Valley with the club in some way or another that is financially doable.0 -
I have nothing but respect for airmen, what he has done to help the club etc etc - even though he got a bit trappy a few years back with me when I was posting things he didn’t believe - which turned out to be true - but would he consider offering himself up as personal butler to RD for a period of maybe a month, whilst wearing a ‘I’m sorry’ t shirt? in return RD sells the valley at s reasonable price and we all live happily ever after ? Maybe clean Katriens flat for a month as well - I have a nasty feeling we have a ‘over my dead body’ situation with RD and the valley - how do we get past that ?eastterrace6168 said:
So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.swordfish said:
I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?
Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷♂️3 -
DOUCHER said:
I have nothing but respect for airmen, what he has done to help the club etc etc - even though he got a bit trappy a few years back with me when I was posting things he didn’t believe - which turned out to be true - but would he consider offering himself up as personal butler to RD for a period of maybe a month, whilst wearing a ‘I’m sorry’ t shirt? in return RD sells the valley at s reasonable price and we all live happily ever after ? Maybe clean Katriens flat for a month as well - I have a nasty feeling we have a ‘over my dead body’ situation with RD and the valley - how do we get past that ?eastterrace6168 said:
So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.swordfish said:
I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?
Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷♂️
I believe you may have unwittingly come up with the solution Doucher...🙄4 -
eastterrace6168 said:DOUCHER said:
I have nothing but respect for airmen, what he has done to help the club etc etc - even though he got a bit trappy a few years back with me when I was posting things he didn’t believe - which turned out to be true - but would he consider offering himself up as personal butler to RD for a period of maybe a month, whilst wearing a ‘I’m sorry’ t shirt? in return RD sells the valley at s reasonable price and we all live happily ever after ? Maybe clean Katriens flat for a month as well - I have a nasty feeling we have a ‘over my dead body’ situation with RD and the valley - how do we get past that ?eastterrace6168 said:
So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.swordfish said:
I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?
Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷♂️
I believe you may have unwittingly come up with the solution Doucher...🙄Sounds like a plan to me as well.Rick???0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Maybe we agree to keep his dead body in the museum ?eastterrace6168 said:DOUCHER said:
I have nothing but respect for airmen, what he has done to help the club etc etc - even though he got a bit trappy a few years back with me when I was posting things he didn’t believe - which turned out to be true - but would he consider offering himself up as personal butler to RD for a period of maybe a month, whilst wearing a ‘I’m sorry’ t shirt? in return RD sells the valley at s reasonable price and we all live happily ever after ? Maybe clean Katriens flat for a month as well - I have a nasty feeling we have a ‘over my dead body’ situation with RD and the valley - how do we get past that ?eastterrace6168 said:
So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.swordfish said:
I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?
Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷♂️
I believe you may have unwittingly come up with the solution Doucher...🙄5 -
Good idea, maybe open a "House of Horrors" exhibition, and incl Mouthall, Fartsmell & Co.DOUCHER said:
Maybe we agree to keep his dead body in the museum ?eastterrace6168 said:DOUCHER said:
I have nothing but respect for airmen, what he has done to help the club etc etc - even though he got a bit trappy a few years back with me when I was posting things he didn’t believe - which turned out to be true - but would he consider offering himself up as personal butler to RD for a period of maybe a month, whilst wearing a ‘I’m sorry’ t shirt? in return RD sells the valley at s reasonable price and we all live happily ever after ? Maybe clean Katriens flat for a month as well - I have a nasty feeling we have a ‘over my dead body’ situation with RD and the valley - how do we get past that ?eastterrace6168 said:
So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.swordfish said:
I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?
Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷♂️
I believe you may have unwittingly come up with the solution Doucher...🙄1 -
eastterrace6168 said:
Just like that, ain't life just a bowl of cherries...bobmunro said:eastterrace6168 said:
So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.swordfish said:
I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?
Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷♂️
Or extend the lease.
Was you wearing a Fez when you posted this?
2 -
Unless we made the Premier League… 😬Airman Brown said:
It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club.Chizz said:
a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valleythenewbie said:
Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.TheAddicks4Ever said:Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good
and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…
This is really good news for Charlton…
Dare I say it…
”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”
(oooh and it feels fine)
We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent
Which path would you prefer?0 -
Not sure of the numbers involved but I know what we quoted and we chopped the bollocks off it as a favour to the club.Henry Irving said:
I doubt that.AFKABartram said:
My thinking was the ‘cost’ would be the back of shirt sponsorship and related advertising package.Henry Irving said:valleynick66 said:
Based on the ‘sustainable’ comment by GC.Henry Irving said:
Is it? You've seen the budget for this coming season then?valleynick66 said:
Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine.I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else.Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news.
You said the same, constantly, for last season when we had the 4th or 5th biggest budget in the division.You are focussing on the wrong part of my post though. I’m curious what they fundamentally fell out over.
The new floodlights are another example of the club spending money rather than kicking that can down the road as has happened too often recently.
.
Back of shorts sponsorship is minimal and less that the 100ks a whole new system would cost.
@Swisdom
@Swisdom might know more
id assume there’s a payment plan involved rather than paying it all up front.2 -
He ain't seen nothing until he tries to deal with RD over the properties!Clem_Snide said:If he managed to work with the lunatic who owns Forest he must have the patience of a saint!2 -
What he does in his spare time is his businessAppyAddick said:
Let's hope he is not into nice breads and bitchesAirman Brown said:
Does he like trains?Arthur_Trudgill said:Ambitious.
Young.
Ex-footballer.
Ex-scout.
Ex-technical director.
American connection.
Experience in English football.
Experience in European football.
Is there a box that's not ticked?0 -
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.0 -
Part of the problem is the outsourcing of retail, until this year, and hospitality.TellyTubby said:
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.
But our commercial income is poor compared to other clubs who sponsor the hell out of everythingm
Charlton couldn't even sell one of three Nathan Jones shirt sponsorships. They also buggered up the player of the year dinner through incompetence.
There is a lot of scope for improvement. Appointing a commercial manager would be a start.4 -
Mmmmm…….welcome to The Valley Dane.🙄Dave2l said:His CV is good....But he is American.
Charlton and the U.S are two things that just don't go together. We are a proud small club.
Is he going to be sensitive and is he going to be a twitter addict public relations ego maniac.
"Hey ass-hole I've been watching soccer my whole life so stop being such a jackass"
"Oh my gaaad, this stadium isn't even full - whats going on here, and this weather sucks ass"
"What's that dudes name? Curb-ish-ley? But you guys call him curbs right?"0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Presuming you mean last years POTY Dinner?Henry Irving said:
Part of the problem is the outsourcing of retail, until this year, and hospitality.TellyTubby said:
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.
But our commercial income is poor compared to other clubs who sponsor the hell out of everythingm
Charlton couldn't even sell one of three Nathan Jones shirt sponsorships. They also buggered up the player of the year dinner through incompetence.
There is a lot of scope for improvement. Appointing a commercial manager would be a start.
There's been a clear and determined effort to produce an similar event that enables more fans to attend (hopefully coming in the summer) and one that less restrictive/out dated0 -
I thought that it got cancelled due to the 1st Team to prepare for the end of the season, not due to that the format was wrong in some people's opinion?sammy391 said:
Presuming you mean last years POTY Dinner?Henry Irving said:
Part of the problem is the outsourcing of retail, until this year, and hospitality.TellyTubby said:
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.
But our commercial income is poor compared to other clubs who sponsor the hell out of everythingm
Charlton couldn't even sell one of three Nathan Jones shirt sponsorships. They also buggered up the player of the year dinner through incompetence.
There is a lot of scope for improvement. Appointing a commercial manager would be a start.
There's been a clear and determined effort to produce an similar event that enables more fans to attend (hopefully coming in the summer) and one that less restrictive/out dated1 -
Bit of both I think - certainly feels like an effort being made to bring these types of thing into the 21st century - especially as it meant that a large swathe of the Addicks Population couldn't/wouldn't attend POTY DinnersJohnnyH2 said:
I thought that it got cancelled due to the 1st Team to prepare for the end of the season, not due to that the format was wrong in some people's opinion?sammy391 said:
Presuming you mean last years POTY Dinner?Henry Irving said:
Part of the problem is the outsourcing of retail, until this year, and hospitality.TellyTubby said:
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.
But our commercial income is poor compared to other clubs who sponsor the hell out of everythingm
Charlton couldn't even sell one of three Nathan Jones shirt sponsorships. They also buggered up the player of the year dinner through incompetence.
There is a lot of scope for improvement. Appointing a commercial manager would be a start.
There's been a clear and determined effort to produce an similar event that enables more fans to attend (hopefully coming in the summer) and one that less restrictive/out dated0 -
You mean the dinners that sold out year on year when we were crap but didn't happen at all this year.sammy391 said:
Bit of both I think - certainly feels like an effort being made to bring these types of thing into the 21st century - especially as it meant that a large swathe of the Addicks Population couldn't/wouldn't attend POTY DinnersJohnnyH2 said:
I thought that it got cancelled due to the 1st Team to prepare for the end of the season, not due to that the format was wrong in some people's opinion?sammy391 said:
Presuming you mean last years POTY Dinner?Henry Irving said:
Part of the problem is the outsourcing of retail, until this year, and hospitality.TellyTubby said:
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.
But our commercial income is poor compared to other clubs who sponsor the hell out of everythingm
Charlton couldn't even sell one of three Nathan Jones shirt sponsorships. They also buggered up the player of the year dinner through incompetence.
There is a lot of scope for improvement. Appointing a commercial manager would be a start.
There's been a clear and determined effort to produce an similar event that enables more fans to attend (hopefully coming in the summer) and one that less restrictive/out dated
Yeah, no dinner at all is really 21st century.7 -
Something selling out doesn’t make it the best thing though. Surely it shows there’s extra demand that can’t be fulfilled so a different event with a higher capacity should be explored?Henry Irving said:
You mean the dinners that sold out year on year when we were crap but didn't happen at all this year.sammy391 said:
Bit of both I think - certainly feels like an effort being made to bring these types of thing into the 21st century - especially as it meant that a large swathe of the Addicks Population couldn't/wouldn't attend POTY DinnersJohnnyH2 said:
I thought that it got cancelled due to the 1st Team to prepare for the end of the season, not due to that the format was wrong in some people's opinion?sammy391 said:
Presuming you mean last years POTY Dinner?Henry Irving said:
Part of the problem is the outsourcing of retail, until this year, and hospitality.TellyTubby said:
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.
But our commercial income is poor compared to other clubs who sponsor the hell out of everythingm
Charlton couldn't even sell one of three Nathan Jones shirt sponsorships. They also buggered up the player of the year dinner through incompetence.
There is a lot of scope for improvement. Appointing a commercial manager would be a start.
There's been a clear and determined effort to produce an similar event that enables more fans to attend (hopefully coming in the summer) and one that less restrictive/out dated
Yeah, no dinner at all is really 21st century.1 -
A venue away from The Valley?fenaddick said:
Something selling out doesn’t make it the best thing though. Surely it shows there’s extra demand that can’t be fulfilled so a different event with a higher capacity should be explored?Henry Irving said:
You mean the dinners that sold out year on year when we were crap but didn't happen at all this year.sammy391 said:
Bit of both I think - certainly feels like an effort being made to bring these types of thing into the 21st century - especially as it meant that a large swathe of the Addicks Population couldn't/wouldn't attend POTY DinnersJohnnyH2 said:
I thought that it got cancelled due to the 1st Team to prepare for the end of the season, not due to that the format was wrong in some people's opinion?sammy391 said:
Presuming you mean last years POTY Dinner?Henry Irving said:
Part of the problem is the outsourcing of retail, until this year, and hospitality.TellyTubby said:
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.
But our commercial income is poor compared to other clubs who sponsor the hell out of everythingm
Charlton couldn't even sell one of three Nathan Jones shirt sponsorships. They also buggered up the player of the year dinner through incompetence.
There is a lot of scope for improvement. Appointing a commercial manager would be a start.
There's been a clear and determined effort to produce an similar event that enables more fans to attend (hopefully coming in the summer) and one that less restrictive/out dated
Yeah, no dinner at all is really 21st century.0 -
Yes, but it didn't expand, it just never happened because Higson and Methven had grand ideas they couldn't implement, not an untypical occurance from what I heard.fenaddick said:
Something selling out doesn’t make it the best thing though. Surely it shows there’s extra demand that can’t be fulfilled so a different event with a higher capacity should be explored?Henry Irving said:
You mean the dinners that sold out year on year when we were crap but didn't happen at all this year.sammy391 said:
Bit of both I think - certainly feels like an effort being made to bring these types of thing into the 21st century - especially as it meant that a large swathe of the Addicks Population couldn't/wouldn't attend POTY DinnersJohnnyH2 said:
I thought that it got cancelled due to the 1st Team to prepare for the end of the season, not due to that the format was wrong in some people's opinion?sammy391 said:
Presuming you mean last years POTY Dinner?Henry Irving said:
Part of the problem is the outsourcing of retail, until this year, and hospitality.TellyTubby said:
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.
But our commercial income is poor compared to other clubs who sponsor the hell out of everythingm
Charlton couldn't even sell one of three Nathan Jones shirt sponsorships. They also buggered up the player of the year dinner through incompetence.
There is a lot of scope for improvement. Appointing a commercial manager would be a start.
There's been a clear and determined effort to produce an similar event that enables more fans to attend (hopefully coming in the summer) and one that less restrictive/out dated
Yeah, no dinner at all is really 21st century.
So the potential commercial income was lost and the event was lost.
As for "outdated" Higson wanted a comedian. Very cutting edge!
As for "hopefully this summer" it's June. Nothing has been announced and I very much doubt any venue has even been booked6 -
Do not expand this quote, it will blow your mind... 😵💫fenaddick said:
Something selling out doesn’t make it the best thing though. Surely it shows there’s extra demand that can’t be fulfilled so a different event with a higher capacity should be explored?Henry Irving said:
You mean the dinners that sold out year on year when we were crap but didn't happen at all this year.sammy391 said:
Bit of both I think - certainly feels like an effort being made to bring these types of thing into the 21st century - especially as it meant that a large swathe of the Addicks Population couldn't/wouldn't attend POTY DinnersJohnnyH2 said:
I thought that it got cancelled due to the 1st Team to prepare for the end of the season, not due to that the format was wrong in some people's opinion?sammy391 said:
Presuming you mean last years POTY Dinner?Henry Irving said:
Part of the problem is the outsourcing of retail, until this year, and hospitality.TellyTubby said:
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.
But our commercial income is poor compared to other clubs who sponsor the hell out of everythingm
Charlton couldn't even sell one of three Nathan Jones shirt sponsorships. They also buggered up the player of the year dinner through incompetence.
There is a lot of scope for improvement. Appointing a commercial manager would be a start.
There's been a clear and determined effort to produce an similar event that enables more fans to attend (hopefully coming in the summer) and one that less restrictive/out dated
Yeah, no dinner at all is really 21st century.
4 -
No but a different format might increase capacity at The Valley, a change from a sit down event would surely increase capacity? I’m not saying it is a necessity but it would be silly not to look to expand something popular that could bring in some more revenueTellyTubby said:
A venue away from The Valley?fenaddick said:
Something selling out doesn’t make it the best thing though. Surely it shows there’s extra demand that can’t be fulfilled so a different event with a higher capacity should be explored?Henry Irving said:
You mean the dinners that sold out year on year when we were crap but didn't happen at all this year.sammy391 said:
Bit of both I think - certainly feels like an effort being made to bring these types of thing into the 21st century - especially as it meant that a large swathe of the Addicks Population couldn't/wouldn't attend POTY DinnersJohnnyH2 said:
I thought that it got cancelled due to the 1st Team to prepare for the end of the season, not due to that the format was wrong in some people's opinion?sammy391 said:
Presuming you mean last years POTY Dinner?Henry Irving said:
Part of the problem is the outsourcing of retail, until this year, and hospitality.TellyTubby said:
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.
But our commercial income is poor compared to other clubs who sponsor the hell out of everythingm
Charlton couldn't even sell one of three Nathan Jones shirt sponsorships. They also buggered up the player of the year dinner through incompetence.
There is a lot of scope for improvement. Appointing a commercial manager would be a start.
There's been a clear and determined effort to produce an similar event that enables more fans to attend (hopefully coming in the summer) and one that less restrictive/out dated
Yeah, no dinner at all is really 21st century.0 -
Potential bad execution doesn’t make an idea bad. I’m not saying Higson or CM had good ideas because I don’t know what they were. I’m just saying why wouldn’t you at least look at improving something? Sure it was badly handled this year and it sounds like maybe they threw NJ under the bus a bit but maybe the 25/26 end of season event will be better than the 24/25 one, we don’t knowHenry Irving said:
Yes, but it didn't expand, it just never happened because Higson and Methven had grand ideas they couldn't implement, not an untypical occurance from what I heard.fenaddick said:
Something selling out doesn’t make it the best thing though. Surely it shows there’s extra demand that can’t be fulfilled so a different event with a higher capacity should be explored?Henry Irving said:
You mean the dinners that sold out year on year when we were crap but didn't happen at all this year.sammy391 said:
Bit of both I think - certainly feels like an effort being made to bring these types of thing into the 21st century - especially as it meant that a large swathe of the Addicks Population couldn't/wouldn't attend POTY DinnersJohnnyH2 said:
I thought that it got cancelled due to the 1st Team to prepare for the end of the season, not due to that the format was wrong in some people's opinion?sammy391 said:
Presuming you mean last years POTY Dinner?Henry Irving said:
Part of the problem is the outsourcing of retail, until this year, and hospitality.TellyTubby said:
Looking at the comparison table of Championship clubs, our commercial income is embarrassingly low. By far the smallest of all clubs, even less than Oxford.Henry Irving said:
You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.valleynick66 said:
Do we know why they were at loggerheads?Airman Brown said:
That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?daveydanger said:As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically).If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.
Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.
Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.
Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".
It's clear the club is being poorly managed on that side, and suggests other things could be improved. Hopefully the Reebok deal is the start of an upward direction for income generally.
But our commercial income is poor compared to other clubs who sponsor the hell out of everythingm
Charlton couldn't even sell one of three Nathan Jones shirt sponsorships. They also buggered up the player of the year dinner through incompetence.
There is a lot of scope for improvement. Appointing a commercial manager would be a start.
There's been a clear and determined effort to produce an similar event that enables more fans to attend (hopefully coming in the summer) and one that less restrictive/out dated
Yeah, no dinner at all is really 21st century.
So the potential commercial income was lost and the event was lost.
As for "outdated" Higson wanted a comedian. Very cutting edge!
As for "hopefully this summer" it's June. Nothing has been announced and I very much doubt any venue has even been booked0
