I gave up Len getting a pint at half time as unless you dive out there ten minutes early or queue til ten minutes into the second half its a lottery as to whether you get served.
Doesnt even bother me that much as a punter but annoys the shit out of me when i think of all the money the club is not receiving because of lack of initiative.
Extrapolate the extra cash they could but dont take over the course of a season and I wouldnt be surprised if it was nearly a couple of million across all stands.
Cant take booze in the stands so when they have 20k + people "trapped" and wanting a pint basic marketing tells you to make sure you can meet that demand.
Let's say in an extreme scenario that 4,000 fans would be keen to have a £4 half-time pint if they could be served it in time to drink and enjoy it, but currently only say 250 managed to be served around the stadium with the current arrangement.
So 3,750 x £4 x 23 matches = £345,000 (only), and of course such a beer-pouring process is totally unachievable.
Would be nice of course, but not enough to transform the finances.
And i know we are by no means alone in being in this position, but it actually makes me angry that football in general has allowed itself to get into such a greed-driven, unaccountable mess, that being run so shitilly is actually the norm.
Did anyone see that Alan Sugar documentary a while back? I can't stand the bloke, but he made some interesting points regarding the finances in football, one of which was that he would like to see a few big name teams go broke and completely disappear off of the face of the earth so that something is done about the stupid amounts of money involved. He also said about players still getting paid when injured (Darren Anderton).
And i know we are by no means alone in being in this position, but it actually makes me angry that football in general has allowed itself to get into such a greed-driven, unaccountable mess, that being run so shitilly is actually the norm.
Did anyone see that Alan Sugar documentary a while back? I can't stand the bloke, but he made some interesting points regarding the finances in football, one of which was that he would like to see a few big name teams go broke and completely disappear off of the face of the earth so that something is done about the stupid amounts of money involved. He also said about players still getting paid when injured (Darren Anderton).
It's worth reading the Simon Jordan book if you haven't done so - a complete prat with a massive ego but speaks a lot of sense about football. When he talks about how having to pay strikers goal bonuses, it was very funny (isn't that what they get paid for anyway?)
Warning to anyone reading this post. Please view it as a genuine question rather than trying to raise unecessary alarm but............... ....... is voluntary administration an option if it is difficult to attract new investment?
I understand (I think!) that most of our debt is 'friendly' and unsecured to there is little incentive for these creditors to force administration. We are unlikely to get promoted or relegated and are building up a points buffer from the bottom 3 which may be able to comfortably absorb the 10 point penalty (or is it more for voluntary admin?). So, Admin may be a neat way to get the balance sheet healthier to attract new investors.
Or are the possible stumbling blocks to this; a) that the shareholding structure makes it unlikely ever to get agreement to voluntary admin? and/or b) would our mix of creditors make it unlikely that a CVA (that would be acceptable to new investors) would ever get the necessary creditor sanction?
Or is there no such thing as Voluntary Admin?
If anyone can enlighten me around this I'd appreciate it.
Warning to anyone reading this post. Please view it as a genuine question rather than trying to raise unecessary alarm but............... ....... is voluntary administration an option if it is difficult to attract new investment?
I understand (I think!) that most of our debt is 'friendly' and unsecured to there is little incentive for these creditors to force administration. We are unlikely to get promoted or relegated and are building up a points buffer from the bottom 3 which may be able to comfortably absorb the 10 point penalty (or is it more for voluntary admin?). So, Admin may be a neat way to get the balance sheet healthier to attract new investors.
Or are the possible stumbling blocks to this; a) that the shareholding structure makes it unlikely ever to get agreement to voluntary admin? and/or b) would our mix of creditors make it unlikely that a CVA (that would be acceptable to new investors) would ever get the necessary creditor sanction?
Or is there no such thing as Voluntary Admin?
If anyone can enlighten me around this I'd appreciate it.
Warning to anyone reading this post. Please view it as a genuine question rather than trying to raise unecessary alarm but............... ....... is voluntary administration an option if it is difficult to attract new investment?
I understand (I think!) that most of our debt is 'friendly' and unsecured to there is little incentive for these creditors to force administration. We are unlikely to get promoted or relegated and are building up a points buffer from the bottom 3 which may be able to comfortably absorb the 10 point penalty (or is it more for voluntary admin?). So, Admin may be a neat way to get the balance sheet healthier to attract new investors.
Or are the possible stumbling blocks to this; a) that the shareholding structure makes it unlikely ever to get agreement to voluntary admin? and/or b) would our mix of creditors make it unlikely that a CVA (that would be acceptable to new investors) would ever get the necessary creditor sanction?
Or is there no such thing as Voluntary Admin?
If anyone can enlighten me around this I'd appreciate it.
Like an IVA (Individual Voluntary Arrangement)?
Yes I think it works pretty much the same way except it's on a company. I guess my questions around this in particular are a) do 75% of the voting creditors have to agree to it and b) If so, is 'friendly' debt more than 75% of creditors and, therefore, are they likely to agree to it given they'd be offered next to nothing?
I see that NYA has posted on his blog that there were debts to trade creditors of £1.3m at June 30th. And there, my friends, is the answer to many of your questions about what went on last summer (sounds like the title of a film!).
I gave up Len getting a pint at half time as unless you dive out there ten minutes early or queue til ten minutes into the second half its a lottery as to whether you get served.
Doesnt even bother me that much as a punter but annoys the shit out of me when i think of all the money the club is not receiving because of lack of initiative.
Extrapolate the extra cash they could but dont take over the course of a season and I wouldnt be surprised if it was nearly a couple of million across all stands.
Cant take booze in the stands so when they have 20k + people "trapped" and wanting a pint basic marketing tells you to make sure you can meet that demand.
Let's say in an extreme scenario that 4,000 fans would be keen to have a £4 half-time pint if they could be served it in time to drink and enjoy it, but currently only say 250 managed to be served around the stadium with the current arrangement.
So 3,750 x £4 x 23 matches = £345,000 (only), and of course such a beer-pouring process is totally unachievable.
Would be nice of course, but not enough to transform the finances.
Except that £4 includes VAT, duty, purchase cost, staffing cost ... and it's unlikely the unmet demand is more than 1,000 people in the real world.
How about 50p x 1,000 x 23 = £11,500? It's probably nearer the mark. I agree the real issue is that people can't get what they want, however,
Airman's calculation seems quite realistic to me - come on, Mr Accountant RodneyCharltonTrotta, let's see how you got to "nearly a couple of million" ;-)
The problem is that the £8m invested this year would not necessarily get paid back. If the club was put into Administration (and they are all, effectively, voluntary as it protects against the company being wound up) if a third party came in to take the company on they could take it from the current owners for as little as 1p in the £. Thus the £8m invested this last season could be repaid for £80k.
Thus the current owners (who, no doubt, want to sell the club on for a profit) would lose over £7m!
If the current board were able to but the club back then they could reduce the debts but as the biggest debt to a financial instruction is secured on The Valley hp they could keep the ground and demand rent for it - or build houses on it!
Airman's calculation seems quite realistic to me - come on, Mr Accountant RodneyCharltonTrotta, let's see how you got to "nearly a couple of million" ;-)
Creative accounting Weegie ;-)
I was talking revenue not profit and being more generous with the number of people in a 20000 crowd who would part cash for a beer if it wasnt akin to the krypton factor .
The Vat and duty will be incremental costs surely and so youll have the same profit margin whether you sell 10 beers or 1000.
Extra staffing costs yes but that would be absorbed by the additional revenue and barely noticeable.
I agree that it is probably unlikely to serve 10k beers at half time (if the demand were that high) with the infrastructure in place but surely selling more than they currently do and having punters part with cash rather than stay in their seats with cash in their pockets is better than not taking their money.
Plus the daytrippers that turn up with kids and want a hot dog probably get put off when they dont get one and may not return as its spoiled their day out when little johnny had a hissy fit cos he didnt get his grub.
The numbers I used may well be well out of kilter and exaggerated but as far as marketing goes its one of the very few things that the club doesnt appear to do to its full potential and id argue that for some punters (such as the day trippers who have no loyalty to us) it is almost detrimental.
Thanks, NYA. The figure I was given - £4.6m - was definitely for the "playing squad". So it would presumably not include CP and his team, not the marketing, sales, admin, nor any directors salaries. Even so it seems a bit of a stretch to get from 4.6 to nearly 8.0. Yet my source was "authoritative" and very pleased to convey that the same figure for Huddersfield was 6.8m.
Well the bare facts are, that costs considerably outstrip revenues, and there is no obvious way how to bridge the gap in this division. I wonder how Millwall have a smaller loss, given that their revenues must be quite a lot lower.
The figure of £8M is up from £7M the year before and includes all staff, not just the playing squad ... full time playing, training and mgt numbers are 73 people with 55 admin, commercial and stadium maintenance. It also includes a promotion bonus of £3/4M so maybe the basic playing squad did cost <£5M?
The good news from the accounts is that there is nearly £4M of potential add-ons from previous player sales depending upon appearances...
How Charlton and the rest of the Championship sides close the gap to fit into Financial fair play will be interesting to watch but our U18 team indicates we are in it for the long term
Why would new(ish) owners go down the admin route when we are on course on the plan announced by Mr Slater a long time back... Year 1 promotion, Year 2 consolidate, Year 3 go for the play-offs - their losses are possibly tax deductible and we are half way to the end goal
Let's say the lost profit is £50,000 per season then - I don't believe it's at all likely, but for argument's sake let's say it is. That's about £2k a match. To meet the demand would presumably require a speculative capital investment in the infrastructure in all stands, which may or may not be feasible. It probably isn't, but never mind. You're not going to recover that cost in the first or maybe the second year, so in the real world of football you are never going to do it. And actually, because it's speculative, you shouldn't do it. There are better ways of getting a return on that investment, like creating better hospitality facilities for which you can charge more.
I see that NYA has posted on his blog that there were debts to trade creditors of £1.3m at June 30th. And there, my friends, is the answer to many of your questions about what went on last summer (sounds like the title of a film!).
Although worth noting it was £1.2m at 30 Jun 2010 and £2.3m (!) at 30 Jun 2011....
It is a really minor point, but the Germans and Czechs have people with mobile beer machines selling among the crowd and throughout the game. I expect there is some half arsed rule that says we can't do it here but it's just one of many things you could do to help get people to spend more money and enjoy themselves more.
Let's say the lost profit is £50,000 per season then - I don't believe it's at all likely, but for argument's sake let's say it is. That's about £2k a match. To meet the demand would presumably require a speculative capital investment in the infrastructure in all stands, which may or may not be feasible. It probably isn't, but never mind. You're not going to recover that cost in the first or maybe the second year, so in the real world of football you are never going to do it. And actually, because it's speculative, you shouldn't do it. There are better ways of getting a return on that investment, like creating better hospitality facilities for which you can charge more.
I agree with what you are saying and obviously your knowledge and experience of it gives you much better insight, but surely whilst it not be possible to meet 100% of potential and existing demand (and my earlier exaggerated numbers) it still could be improved upon and revenue increased without any real capital expenditure
Ie work out how many pints they sell and pre pour this amount during the first half and have a queue for beer only which I imagine is the main sale at half time. Then those who want beer and food can queue as normal for example.
I see that NYA has posted on his blog that there were debts to trade creditors of £1.3m at June 30th. And there, my friends, is the answer to many of your questions about what went on last summer (sounds like the title of a film!).
I see that NYA has posted on his blog that there were debts to trade creditors of £1.3m at June 30th. And there, my friends, is the answer to many of your questions about what went on last summer (sounds like the title of a film!).
Although worth noting it was £1.2m at 30 Jun 2010 and £2.3m (!) at 30 Jun 2011....
Let's say the lost profit is £50,000 per season then - I don't believe it's at all likely, but for argument's sake let's say it is. That's about £2k a match. To meet the demand would presumably require a speculative capital investment in the infrastructure in all stands, which may or may not be feasible. It probably isn't, but never mind. You're not going to recover that cost in the first or maybe the second year, so in the real world of football you are never going to do it. And actually, because it's speculative, you shouldn't do it. There are better ways of getting a return on that investment, like creating better hospitality facilities for which you can charge more.
I agree with what you are saying and obviously your knowledge and experience of it gives you much better insight, but surely whilst it not be possible to meet 100% of potential and existing demand (and my earlier exaggerated numbers) it still could be improved upon and revenue increased without any real capital expenditure
Ie work out how many pints they sell and pre pour this amount during the first half and have a queue for beer only which I imagine is the main sale at half time. Then those who want beer and food can queue as normal for example.
Probably true. It's not my area, but I would say if it's that easy it's surprising it's never been done. It isn't because that part of the club isn't interested in making money.
Let's say the lost profit is £50,000 per season then - I don't believe it's at all likely, but for argument's sake let's say it is. That's about £2k a match. To meet the demand would presumably require a speculative capital investment in the infrastructure in all stands, which may or may not be feasible. It probably isn't, but never mind. You're not going to recover that cost in the first or maybe the second year, so in the real world of football you are never going to do it. And actually, because it's speculative, you shouldn't do it. There are better ways of getting a return on that investment, like creating better hospitality facilities for which you can charge more.
I agree with what you are saying and obviously your knowledge and experience of it gives you much better insight, but surely whilst it not be possible to meet 100% of potential and existing demand (and my earlier exaggerated numbers) it still could be improved upon and revenue increased without any real capital expenditure
Ie work out how many pints they sell and pre pour this amount during the first half and have a queue for beer only which I imagine is the main sale at half time. Then those who want beer and food can queue as normal for example.
Probably true. It's not my area, but I would say if it's that easy it's surprising it's never been done. It isn't because that part of the club isn't interested in making money.
The problem is that the £8m invested this year would not necessarily get paid back. If the club was put into Administration (and they are all, effectively, voluntary as it protects against the company being wound up) if a third party came in to take the company on they could take it from the current owners for as little as 1p in the £. Thus the £8m invested this last season could be repaid for £80k.
Thus the current owners (who, no doubt, want to sell the club on for a profit) would lose over £7m!
If the current board were able to but the club back then they could reduce the debts but as the biggest debt to a financial instruction is secured on The Valley hp they could keep the ground and demand rent for it - or build houses on it!
I gave up Len getting a pint at half time as unless you dive out there ten minutes early or queue til ten minutes into the second half its a lottery as to whether you get served.
Doesnt even bother me that much as a punter but annoys the shit out of me when i think of all the money the club is not receiving because of lack of initiative.
Extrapolate the extra cash they could but dont take over the course of a season and I wouldnt be surprised if it was nearly a couple of million across all stands.
Cant take booze in the stands so when they have 20k + people "trapped" and wanting a pint basic marketing tells you to make sure you can meet that demand.
For instance, bar staff with backpacks dispensing Fosters would reduce the queues at half time.
Something needs to be done about the lack of beer service at half-time. Surely a beer-only queue is worth a trial, if staffed by someone strong enough to enforce the rule.
Also, do we maximise our kit sponsorship possibilities? I know we have different sponsor logos on home / away shirts but aren't we also allowed a small advert on the back of the shirt (Palace have Jelly Comms on theirs)
I think the FA rules also allow adverts on shorts and socks and whilst i don't want to go as far as the Brazilians who absolutely cover their shirts with adverts, I feel that surely we should get as much as we can.
If we went into administration it would be a different matter - but it is hard to look at what has happened since Jiminez took over and be too critical.
Something needs to be done about the lack of beer service at half-time. Surely a beer-only queue is worth a trial, if staffed by someone strong enough to enforce the rule.
Also, do we maximise our kit sponsorship possibilities? I know we have different sponsor logos on home / away shirts but aren't we also allowed a small advert on the back of the shirt (Palace have Jelly Comms on theirs)
I think the FA rules also allow adverts on shorts and socks and whilst i don't want to go as far as the Brazilians who absolutely cover their shirts with adverts, I feel that surely we should get as much as we can.
we used to have drink only queues. was much better.
So £7.5 losses cover 10% by R. Murray (£750k) and 45% each by Slater/Cash and Jimenez (£3m each). .
This is probably what most of us had been assuming, myself included, but it's not right. The ongoing losses are not being funded by a series of rights issues to which all shareholders subscribe, but by loans from CAFCH. What this means is that Richard Murray is not covering 10% of the losses. Indeed, based on these accounts he is not injecting any new money into the Club and will begin to take money out as his loans are repaid. He does, however, retain 10% of the equity which will benefit him if and when the Club is sold.
Your key point still holds of course. The current situation is sustainable so long as whoever is writing the cheques - and we don't really know who that is - is prepared to keep doing so.
A couple of additional points. First, somebody said that it might make sense to spend more money, increasing the losses, to expedite promotion to the EPL, on the basis that this is the only way out. Whilst certainly one option, it's a dangerously seductive strategy. I wonder if this might be where Jimenez and Cash fell out. Jimenez wanting to go for it, Cash preferring to stick to the original plan and budget?
Second, great credit to the owners for continuing to fund (however they're doing it) and, so far anyway, for holding on to the players who might be most saleable (Solly, Stephens). This shows commitment. However, it's extraordinary that Chris Powell hasn't been put under intense pressure to prune his squad. Paying wages to players who aren't going to get a regular game, especially now we're more or less safe, really is burning money for nothing. If the Club is holding out for transfer fees, for BWP for example, it may regret failing to simply focus on cutting the wage bill.
Let's say the lost profit is £50,000 per season then - I don't believe it's at all likely, but for argument's sake let's say it is. That's about £2k a match. To meet the demand would presumably require a speculative capital investment in the infrastructure in all stands, which may or may not be feasible. It probably isn't, but never mind. You're not going to recover that cost in the first or maybe the second year, so in the real world of football you are never going to do it. And actually, because it's speculative, you shouldn't do it. There are better ways of getting a return on that investment, like creating better hospitality facilities for which you can charge more.
I agree with what you are saying and obviously your knowledge and experience of it gives you much better insight, but surely whilst it not be possible to meet 100% of potential and existing demand (and my earlier exaggerated numbers) it still could be improved upon and revenue increased without any real capital expenditure
Ie work out how many pints they sell and pre pour this amount during the first half and have a queue for beer only which I imagine is the main sale at half time. Then those who want beer and food can queue as normal for example.
Probably true. It's not my area, but I would say if it's that easy it's surprising it's never been done. It isn't because that part of the club isn't interested in making money.
True! Cheers for the insight.
A lot more to this thread (thanks for the report NYA), but on this point, it has actually been done before.
In the North Upper last season, certainly the bar I used did have a good few rows of beer ready for half time and a lot more people were served as a result. This season, they have reverted back and the club's clients are once again left frustrated by a poor service/experience.
But hey...we're not in the hospitality areas, so let's not worry too much about it.
Comments
So 3,750 x £4 x 23 matches = £345,000 (only), and of course such a beer-pouring process is totally unachievable.
Would be nice of course, but not enough to transform the finances.
....... is voluntary administration an option if it is difficult to attract new investment?
I understand (I think!) that most of our debt is 'friendly' and unsecured to there is little incentive for these creditors to force administration. We are unlikely to get promoted or relegated and are building up a points buffer from the bottom 3 which may be able to comfortably absorb the 10 point penalty (or is it more for voluntary admin?). So, Admin may be a neat way to get the balance sheet healthier to attract new investors.
Or are the possible stumbling blocks to this; a) that the shareholding structure makes it unlikely ever to get agreement to voluntary admin? and/or b) would our mix of creditors make it unlikely that a CVA (that would be acceptable to new investors) would ever get the necessary creditor sanction?
Or is there no such thing as Voluntary Admin?
If anyone can enlighten me around this I'd appreciate it.
How about 50p x 1,000 x 23 = £11,500? It's probably nearer the mark. I agree the real issue is that people can't get what they want, however,
Thus the current owners (who, no doubt, want to sell the club on for a profit) would lose over £7m!
If the current board were able to but the club back then they could reduce the debts but as the biggest debt to a financial instruction is secured on The Valley hp they could keep the ground and demand rent for it - or build houses on it!
I was talking revenue not profit and being more generous with the number of people in a 20000 crowd who would part cash for a beer if it wasnt akin to the krypton factor .
The Vat and duty will be incremental costs surely and so youll have the same profit margin whether you sell 10 beers or 1000.
Extra staffing costs yes but that would be absorbed by the additional revenue and barely noticeable.
I agree that it is probably unlikely to serve 10k beers at half time (if the demand were that high) with the infrastructure in place but surely selling more than they currently do and having punters part with cash rather than stay in their seats with cash in their pockets is better than not taking their money.
Plus the daytrippers that turn up with kids and want a hot dog probably get put off when they dont get one and may not return as its spoiled their day out when little johnny had a hissy fit cos he didnt get his grub.
The numbers I used may well be well out of kilter and exaggerated but as far as marketing goes its one of the very few things that the club doesnt appear to do to its full potential and id argue that for some punters (such as the day trippers who have no loyalty to us) it is almost detrimental.
The good news from the accounts is that there is nearly £4M of potential add-ons from previous player sales depending upon appearances...
How Charlton and the rest of the Championship sides close the gap to fit into Financial fair play will be interesting to watch but our U18 team indicates we are in it for the long term
Why would new(ish) owners go down the admin route when we are on course on the plan announced by Mr Slater a long time back... Year 1 promotion, Year 2 consolidate, Year 3 go for the play-offs - their losses are possibly tax deductible and we are half way to the end goal
Ie work out how many pints they sell and pre pour this amount during the first half and have a queue for beer only which I imagine is the main sale at half time. Then those who want beer and food can queue as normal for example.
Also, do we maximise our kit sponsorship possibilities? I know we have different sponsor logos on home / away shirts but aren't we also allowed a small advert on the back of the shirt (Palace have Jelly Comms on theirs)
I think the FA rules also allow adverts on shorts and socks and whilst i don't want to go as far as the Brazilians who absolutely cover their shirts with adverts, I feel that surely we should get as much as we can.
Your key point still holds of course. The current situation is sustainable so long as whoever is writing the cheques - and we don't really know who that is - is prepared to keep doing so.
A couple of additional points. First, somebody said that it might make sense to spend more money, increasing the losses, to expedite promotion to the EPL, on the basis that this is the only way out. Whilst certainly one option, it's a dangerously seductive strategy. I wonder if this might be where Jimenez and Cash fell out. Jimenez wanting to go for it, Cash preferring to stick to the original plan and budget?
Second, great credit to the owners for continuing to fund (however they're doing it) and, so far anyway, for holding on to the players who might be most saleable (Solly, Stephens). This shows commitment. However, it's extraordinary that Chris Powell hasn't been put under intense pressure to prune his squad. Paying wages to players who aren't going to get a regular game, especially now we're more or less safe, really is burning money for nothing. If the Club is holding out for transfer fees, for BWP for example, it may regret failing to simply focus on cutting the wage bill.
In the North Upper last season, certainly the bar I used did have a good few rows of beer ready for half time and a lot more people were served as a result. This season, they have reverted back and the club's clients are once again left frustrated by a poor service/experience.
But hey...we're not in the hospitality areas, so let's not worry too much about it.