[cite]Posted By: incorruptible addick[/cite]Easy to paint the worst-case picture of administration.
But you only have to look at Southampton and Palace to see that is not usually what happens.
I undertsand all of Razil's concerns and he is quite right to raise them.
But right now I think we can only look at one season at a time, as RM apparently said at the meeting. It would be great to have a five year plan to restore us to prosperity in the premiership by 2015. But we don't even have the basics in place to start thinking about that kind of long-term strategy.
We have to get through this season and hope we are in the championship next season. If we are not, all options will have to viewed again - including administration.But on blance, the fact that we have delayed that for at least another year has to be a good thing. I think...
This really does me in.
Long-term strategy is essential for the very reasons that you give. The idea of not planning for the long-term ... and that's planning, not doing ... until we have the basics in place is nonsense. The plan comes first, followed by the implementation ... not the other way round.
And I would ask ... what is our long-term plan? Not our long-term 'hope' (Christ, that word pisses me off). Yes, we all want success (however you define that) ... question is, who is going to make it happen?
It's why we have to be out there vigorously trying to attract new investment ... not 'hoping'. We have to market this Club pro-actively. There seem to be some, not many, but some potential buyers of football clubs out there, who aren't always getting what they want. Are we on their case, hard-selling CAFC as a decent, but much cheaper alternative to Liverpool or whoever?
[cite]Posted By: incorruptible addick[/cite]Administration is neither good nor desirable. But it would be the right thing to do if we were merely delaying the inevitable.
My point is that it is NOT inevitable, and so it would be the wrong thing to do. We have a fighting chance of getting back to the championship for the 2011/12 season - and then RM says the figures will start to stack up again.
We might not do it and then admin will come back on to the agenda. But RM and others have given us a fighting chance of avoiding it. Let's hope we can seize that chance.
[cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]Long-term strategy is essential for the very reasons that you give. The idea of not planning for the long-term ... and that's planning, not doing ... until we have the basics in place is nonsense. The plan comes first, followed by the implementation ... not the other way round.
Sometimes the plan has to change. Sometimes short term objectives need to be met before longer term plans can come in to play. How would we feel if RM and the rest were busy hurrying around looking for investment instead of backing Parky with the funds and squad etc?
RM and the board can affect what goes on the field far less than the players themselves and there's the rub. Football is different from other "businesses".
[cite]Posted By: incorruptible addick[/cite]Administration is neither good nor desirable. But it would be the right thing to do if we were merely delaying the inevitable.
My point is that it is NOT inevitable, and so it would be the wrong thing to do. We have a fighting chance of getting back to the championship for the 2011/12 season - and then RM says the figures will start to stack up again.
We might not do it and then admin will come back on to the agenda. But RM and others have given us a fighting chance of avoiding it. Let's hope we can seize that chance.
But it has only been made NOT inevitable by the bondholders writing off their bonds and the lenders deferring (possibly forever) any return on their loans. The situation we were in prior to that was that administration could only be staved off by these guys writing more cheques or doing precisely what they did - walking away from their bond claims. Other than that I agree. It will be back on the agenda if we don't get promoted or RM fails to find a buyer with,as he said, "deeper pockets than me".
Dave, you keep referring back to one remark that RM made as proof we are not pro-actively selling the club but all the other evidence goes against that.
We have employed, and at some cost, three different agencies to sell the club and/or raise money. Seymour Pierce, another who I can't remember the name of and the current lot who were represented at the EGM by Tim Fisher.
There have been a number of approaches, mostly from "crackpots and timewasters" unfortunately, so there is clearly awareness out there that we are for sale. There are prepared presentations and DVDs that highlight the positive features of the club.
Could we do more? Perhaps but that would most likely cost money we don't have.
I don't know if RM sees a failed bidder for Liverpool in the papers and chases up his phone number and then tries to ring him but somehow I doubt those sort of people do business like that or would be impressed by a football club that did. Hence your oft quoted remark.
As for a long term strategy I agree. it would be great to have a 20 year plan or even a five year plan but for that you need a degree of stability.
What is being done, and it's painful, is planning for the next few years at this level or the one above. That has meant cutting the Academy budget but keeping the Academy so the the net cost is only £200k pa. Non-playing wages and costs have been cut and playing costs are going down and that trend will continue is we are not bought or promoted.
When you are desperately trying to stay afloat you focus on that.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]D it would be great to have a 20 year plan or even a five year plan but for that you need a degree of stability.
What is being done, and it's painful, is planning for the next few years at this level or the one above. That has meant cutting the Academy budget but keeping the Academy so the the net cost is only £200k pa. Non-playing wages and costs have been cut and playing costs are going down and that trend will continue is we are not bought or promoted.
When you are desperately trying to stay afloat you focus on that.
With the danger of sounding like a former PM but the word the springs to mind is prudence.
We must thank those that have written off debt whether they be small man in street or director. Going forward we are giving it a go this season within managable budgets.
We are signing players with a clear work ethic and look more of a team. The manager understand and is working with the budget constraints with the Chairman.
Of course we will not stop looking for additional or new investment but im sure we will do this in a prudent manner. we wouldnt want a tango like scenario with new owners.
Hopefully we will see the three players arrive before the deadline.
We can them push on with the first half of the season and take stock in early december.
Our job is simple acccept this and get behind the club.
I think Goonerhater raises an interesting point elsewhere. What happens to the financial results for the last year of the PLC ?
Steve Kavanagh did explain this at the meeting, after some debate with Butler-Gallie but I can't remember the details or the reasoning.
They certainly won't be released in the printed form we were used to due to cost while the accounts for the new Ltd company will be at companies house and on the OS.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Steve Kavanagh did explain this at the meeting, after some debate with Butler-Gallie but I can't remember the details or the reasoning.
They certainly won't be released in the printed form we were used to due to cost while the accounts for the new Ltd company will be at companies house and on the OS.
I can see the cost aspect of printing and sending to shareholders, but they should still be publicly released on the OS at the very least.
The shareholders DO have a right to know what happened to the company in the period they were still shareholders in it, despite the fact it was to imminently change to Ltd company, don't you agree ?
I think Goonerhater raises an interesting point elsewhere. What happens to the financial results for the last year of the PLC ?
As H says, SK said they wouldn't be going to the expense (£25k+) of auditing the PLC accounts and sending them out.
I'm surprised (but I don't know for sure either way) if it is the case that there is no obligation to present audited accounts to shareholders for the year to 30 June 2010 as all of the restructuring took place obviously well after that date. I would have thought that shareholders were entitled to those accounts. Having said that, STuart B-G knows his stuff and if he says they don't have to then he's probably right. In any event, it's unlikely that there would be any material disclosures that we're not already aware of.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Steve Kavanagh did explain this at the meeting, after some debate with Butler-Gallie but I can't remember the details or the reasoning.
They certainly won't be released in the printed form we were used to due to cost while the accounts for the new Ltd company will be at companies house and on the OS.
I can see the cost aspect of printing and sending to shareholders, but they should still be publicly released on the OS at the very least.
The shareholders DO have a right to know what happened to the company in the period they were still shareholders in it, despite the fact it was to imminently change to Ltd company, don't you agree ?
I do agree we as shareholders have the moral right but I don't know if there is a legal right. SK and SBG thought it was OK.
If people really want to know email stephen.kavanagh@cafc.co.uk
The Plc have an obligation to lodge accounts with Companies House, but the cost of producing accounts above and beyond that were extimated to be £25k - at least that's how I remember them explaining it.
A good discussion. For my own part I am trying to remain dispassionate and not appear ungrateful simultaneously, while also somewhat playing devil's advocate, and trying to get a grasp on the Finance which is somewhat confusing to a 'Finance simpleton' like myself.
As a general question I would like to know if the losses this coming season include players sold revenue which is about £5m from summer 2010, i.e. is this included in the loss figure quoted for the 2010/11 season?
Does anyone really believe the bond holders would have got their money back? What has happened as I understand it is a mid point between before now, and Administration, to make a formal write off of half our debt(?) making us more attractive to a buyer, and potentially making admin less likely.
As a general question I would like to know if the losses this year include players sold revenue which is about £5m, i.e. is this included in the loss figure quoted for this season?
Don't know as not seen accounts but my guess is that player sales could have gone towards either last years or this, current, years accounts.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]A
Does anyone really believe the bond holders would have got their money back?
If we had been sold earlier or in the Champ then maybe they would have got some, but not all, of it back. DC said that they were always willing to write off some or all of the value of the bonds and shares anyway if a proper offer had come in.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite] formal write off of half our debt(?) making us more attractive to a buyer, and potentially making admin less likely.
rough figures
£29m debt
£14.7 bonds = Gone
£7 loans = deferred until the Prem
£8 (mortgage and loan) = Still with us.
So about half gone, quarter parked long term (could be two years or 20) and quarter still there but all of it external.
The PLC is going to be wound up. Auditors report to the members (shareholders) and RM has effectively done that. Therefore as the PLC is not ongoing there is absolutely no point in filing accounts. Who would be interested? The shareholders know what is happening as do other main "users" of the accounts like the banks and other main creditors.
HMRC will be (will have been) contacted to see if they object to the PLC being struck off the Companies House Register and dissolved. They are unlikely to have cause to object given that there are ongoing losses and therefore no corporation tax liability. If all that I have said above happens / has happened then I doubt if they will bother to prepare PLC accounts to 30 June 2010 at all.
AFKA - just one tiny, tiny point of order. Call me pedantic but the title of this thread - "Richard Murray's Charlton again"….it never has been "Richard Murray's Charlton" before. This is the first time he's owned more than 29.9% of the club (or CA PLC).
I know that it was a slip of the pen but it made me think about some former directors. While we (some of us anyway) are rightly praising Derek Chappel, Bob Whitehand and all the others who have written off so much of their claims on the Club (aswell as their shareholdings – like all the fan-shareholders), it's easy to forget that Messrs Alwen, Simons and Stevens helped RM to bankroll the club (with equity, not loans) when it was similarly living a hand-to-mouth existence back at various stages in the 1990s. Over the years they freely accepted heavy dilution of their shareholdings and of their "say" in the running of the club in order to bring in new capital (with new directors), for no reason other than their love of CAFC.
Fair play to RM - he was able and always willing to be a continuing provider of new capital when it was needed - hence it is no surprise that he is (perhaps together with Richard Hatter and David White) the last one still standing (no disrespect to the others). If he can resurrect the fortunes of the club, he will deserve every penny that he can recoup of the huge sums that he's invested over the years.
I am not diminishing one iota the role played by every fan that bought shares in CA PLC (and lost it all) or was a VIP or supports Valley Gold etc but, notwithstanding the cock-ups that every generation of directors has made (some much more expensive than others), there is now quite a long tradition of significant financial benevolence to Charlton Athletic from many of them. Thanks to all of them.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Dave, you keep referring back to one remark that RM made as proof we are not pro-actively selling the club but all the other evidence goes against that.
We have employed, and at some cost, three different agencies to sell the club and/or raise money. Seymour Pierce, another who I can't remember the name of and the current lot who were represented at the EGM by Tim Fisher.
There have been a number of approaches, mostly from "crackpots and timewasters" unfortunately, so there is clearly awareness out there that we are for sale. There are prepared presentations and DVDs that highlight the positive features of the club.
Could we do more? Perhaps but that would most likely cost money we don't have.
I don't know if RM sees a failed bidder for Liverpool in the papers and chases up his phone number and then tries to ring him but somehow I doubt those sort of people do business like that or would be impressed by a football club that did. Hence your oft quoted remark.
As for a long term strategy I agree. it would be great to have a 20 year plan or even a five year plan but for that you need a degree of stability.
What is being done, and it's painful, is planning for the next few years at this level or the one above. That has meant cutting the Academy budget but keeping the Academy so the the net cost is only £200k pa. Non-playing wages and costs have been cut and playing costs are going down and that trend will continue is we are not bought or promoted.
When you are desperately trying to stay afloat you focus on that.
OK, that's me educated then.
Now remind me of the long-term plan.
And sometimes you have to speculate to accumulate. Money spent on a successful pro-active approach would be repaid in spades. For me, that has to be at the very top of our strategic priorities.
As far as the 'oft-quoted remark' is concerned, I'll continue to quote it as long as seems to remain current. For all the prepared presentations and DVDs, I maintain that we are relying more on a prospective buyer walking past our shop window, rather than the Club knocking on their front door.
It's a debate. No need to take the "OK, that's me educated" hump because someone provided an evidenced counter argument to your post.
You focus on the presentations and DVDs which is slightly disingenuous.
You say money spent on a pro-active approach is well spent so how do you describe Seymour Peirce, Rothchilds and the current lot which you haven't commented on.
you say that "I maintain that we are relying more on a prospective buyer walking past our shop window, rather than the Club knocking on their front door."
But the employment of those first two agencies points against that. The precise role of the current agency I'm not sure about.
in addition having an attractive "shop window" IS being pro-active as it attracts punters to have a second look. Knocking on their front door might be good too but I think most of the sort of people we want have, metaphorical and real, big gates, dogs, guards and CCTV cameras.
If we 're going to focus on specifics... you'll find that I said "Money spent on a SUCCESSFUL pro-active approach would be repaid in spades". That would discount any efforts made by Seymour-Pierce, Rothschilds etc, would it not? To my knowledge, they have not been successful to date.
As for my taking the hump, please take the phrase "that's me educated" on face value. Your post provided information of which I was not previously aware. Education, therefore .. not hump.
I think you'll find that I mentioned ... not focussed ... on presentations and DVDs. It would be more disingenuous to mention everything, would it not? The point remains the same.
Finally, an attractive shop window is one thing, but it does rely on prospective customers walking down our street. And if we are put off by metaphorical guard dogs and CCTV (or should I mention everything on your list?), then we run the risk of losing out to sellers who are not.
If we 're going to focus on specifics... you'll find that I said "Money spent on a SUCCESSFUL pro-active approach would be repaid in spades". That would discount any efforts made by Seymour-Pierce, Rothschilds etc, would it not? To my knowledge, they have not been successful to date.
.
In the sense that they have not resulted in a takeover then not but marketing wallahs would say that marketing is about raising awareness and stimulating interest not closing sales.
But no they have not been successful but how can we guarantee that any other pro-active approach that you urge the club to take would be successful?
What policy do you suggest the Club spend money on that would be 100% successful?
Lets not sidetrack, Dave why don't you start a new thread on 'Long-term plans and objectives' and lets see between ourselves whether we can thrash out something that would look realistic and achievable. Personally, i think it is very difficult to form any sort of plan beyond 12 months at the moment, or anything that purely consists of 'get promoted', but i'm certainly happy to be convinced otherwise.
One other thing occurs to me, and again this isn't intended to be ingratitude and very much a devil's advocate view
On other threads it was suggested that the Directors were willing to take a total loss if the right 'buyer' came along, why not now with RM as that buyer?
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]One other thing occurs to me, and again this isn't intended to be ingratitude and very much a devil's advocate view
On other threads it was suggested that the Directors were willing to take a total loss if the right 'buyer' came along, why not now with RM as that buyer?
They have - the deferred loans are inconsequential.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]One other thing occurs to me, and again this isn't intended to be ingratitude and very much a devil's advocate view
On other threads it was suggested that the Directors were willing to take a total loss if the right 'buyer' came along, why not now with RM as that buyer?
In reality they have taken a total loss.
They might get some back, in stages, if we ever reach the premiership. Not really a great deal.
Comments
This really does me in.
Long-term strategy is essential for the very reasons that you give. The idea of not planning for the long-term ... and that's planning, not doing ... until we have the basics in place is nonsense. The plan comes first, followed by the implementation ... not the other way round.
And I would ask ... what is our long-term plan? Not our long-term 'hope' (Christ, that word pisses me off). Yes, we all want success (however you define that) ... question is, who is going to make it happen?
It's why we have to be out there vigorously trying to attract new investment ... not 'hoping'. We have to market this Club pro-actively. There seem to be some, not many, but some potential buyers of football clubs out there, who aren't always getting what they want. Are we on their case, hard-selling CAFC as a decent, but much cheaper alternative to Liverpool or whoever?
I sincerely hope so (irony).
Agree with that
RM and the board can affect what goes on the field far less than the players themselves and there's the rub. Football is different from other "businesses".
But it has only been made NOT inevitable by the bondholders writing off their bonds and the lenders deferring (possibly forever) any return on their loans. The situation we were in prior to that was that administration could only be staved off by these guys writing more cheques or doing precisely what they did - walking away from their bond claims. Other than that I agree. It will be back on the agenda if we don't get promoted or RM fails to find a buyer with,as he said, "deeper pockets than me".
We have employed, and at some cost, three different agencies to sell the club and/or raise money. Seymour Pierce, another who I can't remember the name of and the current lot who were represented at the EGM by Tim Fisher.
There have been a number of approaches, mostly from "crackpots and timewasters" unfortunately, so there is clearly awareness out there that we are for sale. There are prepared presentations and DVDs that highlight the positive features of the club.
Could we do more? Perhaps but that would most likely cost money we don't have.
I don't know if RM sees a failed bidder for Liverpool in the papers and chases up his phone number and then tries to ring him but somehow I doubt those sort of people do business like that or would be impressed by a football club that did. Hence your oft quoted remark.
As for a long term strategy I agree. it would be great to have a 20 year plan or even a five year plan but for that you need a degree of stability.
What is being done, and it's painful, is planning for the next few years at this level or the one above. That has meant cutting the Academy budget but keeping the Academy so the the net cost is only £200k pa. Non-playing wages and costs have been cut and playing costs are going down and that trend will continue is we are not bought or promoted.
When you are desperately trying to stay afloat you focus on that.
And I agree with that!
: - )
Yeah, but you started it Ben!
"Ooh, it makes me wonder ....."
We must thank those that have written off debt whether they be small man in street or director.
Going forward we are giving it a go this season within managable budgets.
We are signing players with a clear work ethic and look more of a team.
The manager understand and is working with the budget constraints with the Chairman.
Of course we will not stop looking for additional or new investment but im sure we will do this in a prudent manner.
we wouldnt want a tango like scenario with new owners.
Hopefully we will see the three players arrive before the deadline.
We can them push on with the first half of the season and take stock in early december.
Our job is simple acccept this and get behind the club.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh I feel sick just reading that ; - )
I think Goonerhater raises an interesting point elsewhere. What happens to the financial results for the last year of the PLC ?
Steve Kavanagh did explain this at the meeting, after some debate with Butler-Gallie but I can't remember the details or the reasoning.
They certainly won't be released in the printed form we were used to due to cost while the accounts for the new Ltd company will be at companies house and on the OS.
I can see the cost aspect of printing and sending to shareholders, but they should still be publicly released on the OS at the very least.
The shareholders DO have a right to know what happened to the company in the period they were still shareholders in it, despite the fact it was to imminently change to Ltd company, don't you agree ?
As H says, SK said they wouldn't be going to the expense (£25k+) of auditing the PLC accounts and sending them out.
I'm surprised (but I don't know for sure either way) if it is the case that there is no obligation to present audited accounts to shareholders for the year to 30 June 2010 as all of the restructuring took place obviously well after that date. I would have thought that shareholders were entitled to those accounts. Having said that, STuart B-G knows his stuff and if he says they don't have to then he's probably right. In any event, it's unlikely that there would be any material disclosures that we're not already aware of.
I do agree we as shareholders have the moral right but I don't know if there is a legal right. SK and SBG thought it was OK.
If people really want to know email stephen.kavanagh@cafc.co.uk
He's gonna love me for saying that : - )
The Plc have an obligation to lodge accounts with Companies House, but the cost of producing accounts above and beyond that were extimated to be £25k - at least that's how I remember them explaining it.
thanks,
As a general question I would like to know if the losses this coming season include players sold revenue which is about £5m from summer 2010, i.e. is this included in the loss figure quoted for the 2010/11 season?
Does anyone really believe the bond holders would have got their money back? What has happened as I understand it is a mid point between before now, and Administration, to make a formal write off of half our debt(?) making us more attractive to a buyer, and potentially making admin less likely.
Don't know as not seen accounts but my guess is that player sales could have gone towards either last years or this, current, years accounts.
If we had been sold earlier or in the Champ then maybe they would have got some, but not all, of it back. DC said that they were always willing to write off some or all of the value of the bonds and shares anyway if a proper offer had come in.
rough figures
£29m debt
£14.7 bonds = Gone
£7 loans = deferred until the Prem
£8 (mortgage and loan) = Still with us.
So about half gone, quarter parked long term (could be two years or 20) and quarter still there but all of it external.
HMRC will be (will have been) contacted to see if they object to the PLC being struck off the Companies House Register and dissolved. They are unlikely to have cause to object given that there are ongoing losses and therefore no corporation tax liability. If all that I have said above happens / has happened then I doubt if they will bother to prepare PLC accounts to 30 June 2010 at all.
I know that it was a slip of the pen but it made me think about some former directors. While we (some of us anyway) are rightly praising Derek Chappel, Bob Whitehand and all the others who have written off so much of their claims on the Club (aswell as their shareholdings – like all the fan-shareholders), it's easy to forget that Messrs Alwen, Simons and Stevens helped RM to bankroll the club (with equity, not loans) when it was similarly living a hand-to-mouth existence back at various stages in the 1990s. Over the years they freely accepted heavy dilution of their shareholdings and of their "say" in the running of the club in order to bring in new capital (with new directors), for no reason other than their love of CAFC.
Fair play to RM - he was able and always willing to be a continuing provider of new capital when it was needed - hence it is no surprise that he is (perhaps together with Richard Hatter and David White) the last one still standing (no disrespect to the others). If he can resurrect the fortunes of the club, he will deserve every penny that he can recoup of the huge sums that he's invested over the years.
I am not diminishing one iota the role played by every fan that bought shares in CA PLC (and lost it all) or was a VIP or supports Valley Gold etc but, notwithstanding the cock-ups that every generation of directors has made (some much more expensive than others), there is now quite a long tradition of significant financial benevolence to Charlton Athletic from many of them. Thanks to all of them.
OK, that's me educated then.
Now remind me of the long-term plan.
And sometimes you have to speculate to accumulate. Money spent on a successful pro-active approach would be repaid in spades. For me, that has to be at the very top of our strategic priorities.
As far as the 'oft-quoted remark' is concerned, I'll continue to quote it as long as seems to remain current. For all the prepared presentations and DVDs, I maintain that we are relying more on a prospective buyer walking past our shop window, rather than the Club knocking on their front door.
It's a debate. No need to take the "OK, that's me educated" hump because someone provided an evidenced counter argument to your post.
You focus on the presentations and DVDs which is slightly disingenuous.
You say money spent on a pro-active approach is well spent so how do you describe Seymour Peirce, Rothchilds and the current lot which you haven't commented on.
you say that "I maintain that we are relying more on a prospective buyer walking past our shop window, rather than the Club knocking on their front door."
But the employment of those first two agencies points against that. The precise role of the current agency I'm not sure about.
in addition having an attractive "shop window" IS being pro-active as it attracts punters to have a second look. Knocking on their front door might be good too but I think most of the sort of people we want have, metaphorical and real, big gates, dogs, guards and CCTV cameras.
If we 're going to focus on specifics... you'll find that I said "Money spent on a SUCCESSFUL pro-active approach would be repaid in spades". That would discount any efforts made by Seymour-Pierce, Rothschilds etc, would it not? To my knowledge, they have not been successful to date.
As for my taking the hump, please take the phrase "that's me educated" on face value. Your post provided information of which I was not previously aware. Education, therefore .. not hump.
I think you'll find that I mentioned ... not focussed ... on presentations and DVDs. It would be more disingenuous to mention everything, would it not? The point remains the same.
Finally, an attractive shop window is one thing, but it does rely on prospective customers walking down our street. And if we are put off by metaphorical guard dogs and CCTV (or should I mention everything on your list?), then we run the risk of losing out to sellers who are not.
Just an opinion.
In the sense that they have not resulted in a takeover then not but marketing wallahs would say that marketing is about raising awareness and stimulating interest not closing sales.
But no they have not been successful but how can we guarantee that any other pro-active approach that you urge the club to take would be successful?
What policy do you suggest the Club spend money on that would be 100% successful?
On other threads it was suggested that the Directors were willing to take a total loss if the right 'buyer' came along, why not now with RM as that buyer?
They have - the deferred loans are inconsequential.
In reality they have taken a total loss.
They might get some back, in stages, if we ever reach the premiership. Not really a great deal.