Attention: Please take a moment to consider our <a href="http://forum.charltonlife.com/home/termsofservice">terms and conditions</a> before posting.
Owners- Short arms & Long pockets..........or no pockets?
tangoflash
Posts: 10,820
Touching on my comment on the post-match thread (Watford), I'm curious to what others think are the reasons our board haven't invested in the squad sufficiently over the summer?
Is it down to they simply can't afford to?
Rumours about their wealth seem to go against this, so is it just that they simply don't want to invest anymore money than they have to?
It was clear to everybody that we needed to add some quality over the summer, but it simply didn't happen and now the result of this is clear to see. Surely it wouldn't be in their (financial) interest to see us sink back down to L1.
Given NJ's track record of wasting money on average to poor players (Ahadme being a prime example) maybe they simply don't trust him with the purse?
For those that may suggest it's down to PSR/FFP, look at the graph of home attendance so far this season and you'll see plenty of clubs with similar attendances to ourselves, yet spending vastly more. I realise that gate reciepts are only a part of what comes in the door and doesn't account for paracute payments or "Disney" money , but it gives a idea of the size of the club. I've added (according to Transfer Markt) the total deficit. Concentrating mainly on those with similar gates (within 3'000) it's quite staggering to see how far we are behind many of them. How can our board use this as a reason, yet Stoke can spend £38m? How much are they charging those extra 300 punters?
Stinks of lack of commitment to me…………
0
Comments
-
Stoke city are backed by the Coates family who are fans and we are backed by er Investors.4
-
Anyone entering football attempting to make money will always end up in this position where they cut their losses and look to move it on.Fools game.10
-
With the FFP rules, could they spend more if they wanted to? (Please don't respond with BS Man City comparisons).0
-
No. The vast majority of last seasons spending will have come from the increase in TV money because of promotionChunes said:2 -
Well in the latest accounts published on 7th October on Companies House website we lost just over £17m last FY ... so they are basically keeping us afloat and probably feel that's enough ... especially if, as rumoured, one of the owners wants out...9
-
I'm sure if they wanted to they could put in more money and not be in breach of any financial rules.
They just don't want to. The "sale" document at least showed that they are looking for additional funding, and that they had hit their own individual limits.
But I will say that I don't believe anything Rodwell, Carter or NJ says about what was spent in the summer & how our budget is "bottom 3". Grant's wages can't be cheap & I expect we are paying a pretty penny towards Skipp's wages too.
Long & short - we got away with it last season mainly due to teams having points deducted. Not sure we are going to be so lucky this season.
7 -
-
When it comes to accounts season it's worth remembering that any losses from the CAWFC will be covered in their accounts rather than the CAFC ones.Henry Irving said:2 -
Sponsored links:
-
0 -
Still losses covered by the ownersfenaddick said:
When it comes to accounts season it's worth remembering that any losses from the CAWFC will be covered in their accounts rather than the CAFC ones.Henry Irving said:4 -
I didn't say otherwiseHenry Irving said:
Still losses covered by the ownersfenaddick said:
When it comes to accounts season it's worth remembering that any losses from the CAWFC will be covered in their accounts rather than the CAFC ones.Henry Irving said:0 -
Yes, that's what they changed to. It's actually £33m over 3 years and a max of £15m per season so I was a bit offNabySarr said:0 -
In my opinion as I've said elsewhere, they have a choice to invest and either keep us stable in the Championship with a future push for the promised land of the prem. Or face inevitably eventual relegation where they may try to offload their asset with no stadium or training ground. That could result in them losing their original investment just to move it on. NJ isn't a magician and sooner or later we'll get relegated under current policy. Maybe they were sold a pup maybe not but I think they desperately need additional investors or it could end up as a shit show. Roland still keeps us in a little box somewhere that he doesn't give a fuck.10
-
That’s what they can top up on top of spending 85% of our turnover each year. So the rules allow more spending than was previously allowed which is why the championship has gone a bit crazyfenaddick said:
Yes, that's what they changed to. It's actually £33m over 3 years and a max of £15m per season so I was a bit offNabySarr said:
It might be a big part of why they maybe want out. We wanted to do things more sustainably and were probably hoping the rules would change that way to give us an advantage. Now that’s gone we’re at a disadvantage unless we spend more to be competitive4 -
I do actually think Carter could be right about our budget being similar or even slightly above last season. The main driver being wages of new signings and new contracts (TC, Jones and Ramsay won’t have been cheap), plus carrying a larger squad.The problem is the rest of the championship has increased their budgets by more than we have so we are not much higher on the budget league table than we were last season. We probably have a bottom 6 budget, higher than the 3 newly promoted teams and maybe 1 or 2 others5
-
Our turnover was £11m in league 1 so will be at least £21m now. So the owners can lose 85% of that £20m+ each year, plus the £33m over 3 years (max £15m in one season). In summary, they could spend a lot more if they wanted too/had the money too8
-
Spend it then you morons - we are flipping drowning!!NabySarr said:Our turnover was £11m in league 1 so will be at least £21m now. So the owners can lose 85% of that £20m+ each year, plus the £33m over 3 years (max £15m in one season). In summary, they could spend a lot more if they wanted too/had the money too0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Just think they've got spooked by what's required to be truly competitive at this level. We're well within what can be invested but I don't think the appetite to do it is there.
Would not be surprised if we're in new hands by the end of the season.10 -
The average debt per club per season in the Championship is £22 millionCafcWest said:Well in the latest accounts published on 7th October on Companies House website we lost just over £17m last FY ... so they are basically keeping us afloat and probably feel that's enough ... especially if, as rumoured, one of the owners wants out...
1 -
We may have got away with it, but not because of points deductions. If all deducted points were reinstated, there'd still have been four teams below us.golfaddick said:
...Long & short - we got away with it last season mainly due to teams having points deducted. Not sure we are going to be so lucky this season.18 -
We probably would have survived anyway, but worth pointing out that the thing that killed Sheffield Wednesday was not just their points deduction but also their transfer ban & wage cap.Stig said:
We may have got away with it, but not because of points deductions. If all deducted points were reinstated, there'd still have been four teams below us.golfaddick said:
...Long & short - we got away with it last season mainly due to teams having points deducted. Not sure we are going to be so lucky this season.Basically it’s a stronger league this season but we aren’t a commensurately stronger side - thus we’ll likely be relegated.Re how much the owners spend, they could put in more but the most critical thing to do is find ways to develop commercial revenue. That would bring more money into the club, increase how much we are allowed to spend and reduce how much the owners are required to fund of our expenditure.1 -
I suspect what they were sold on as necessary investment vs revenue growth has not materialised. Unless you are a hardened fan with deep rooted support/ties to any team I am sure that the investment will be treated like any other business transaction.I am not moaning about anything right now after too many seasons in league one which I hated (despite averaging around 40 games a season home and away). We are year two in the Championship and evolution and with the crop of youngsters we have coming through and establishing themselves in our first team I believe that we will need to be patient to see them grow into the more competitive outfit we all want us to be.Can’t see nor expect major investment being thrown our way, steady and gradual development looks their way to go while in. Our form after the first three games has unnerved most and there are obvious flaws in our squad but the first three games showed that we have enough quality when the right players are available. Our issue right now is that we are not in a ‘when’ moment. Chalobah and Godden’s experience is important imho2
-
Also the slate was wiped clean so spending in the previous two seasons doesn't count.NabySarr said:
That’s what they can top up on top of spending 85% of our turnover each year. So the rules allow more spending than was previously allowed which is why the championship has gone a bit crazyfenaddick said:
Yes, that's what they changed to. It's actually £33m over 3 years and a max of £15m per season so I was a bit offNabySarr said:
It might be a big part of why they maybe want out. We wanted to do things more sustainably and were probably hoping the rules would change that way to give us an advantage. Now that’s gone we’re at a disadvantage unless we spend more to be competitive
That means teams like Stoke who had spent a lot didn't have to worry about the over three years rule, not now at least.
Could the owners had put more in? Possibly.
Are they still losing a lot of money? Yes.
Do we have lower commercial income than most clubs in the division? Yes, it's an area where we've underperformed for ages.5 -
Its all gone quiet on the investor/sale stuff0
-
They gave NJ bigger budget then last year .. let’s not forget we were long way down the line in agreeing a deal of up-to 6 mill for our former winger .. wages have increased massively with us close to having a 30k a week player on our books .. so money been spent and there still some left if needed in January perhaps a cheaper deal for JRS4
-
Carter was explicit that the transfer and wage budgets were separate, and he was referring to the transfer spend at the time. When he said we were spending similar to last year, he explained that the money is accounted in the season it was spent. E.G. we paid 4 million last year upfront and had 2 million in instalments this season. We spent 2 million upfront this year with no instalments next season. Therefore we spent 4 million in each year.NabySarr said:I do actually think Carter could be right about our budget being similar or even slightly above last season. The main driver being wages of new signings and new contracts (TC, Jones and Ramsay won’t have been cheap), plus carrying a larger squad.The problem is the rest of the championship has increased their budgets by more than we have so we are not much higher on the budget league table than we were last season. We probably have a bottom 6 budget, higher than the 3 newly promoted teams and maybe 1 or 2 others
Obviously this is a simplified example, and while Gavin is correct in that we spent a similar amount to last year from an accounting view, we've also spent less money this season from a player view.0
