Still, I would encourage their complacency because it only serves the opposition. All this might put the council in a difficult position regarding approval of the ACV application. Turn it down and it exposes their plans. Approve it and it might be a political nightmare to be seen to be party to the club leaving the Valley in the mid-term.
Exactly. I was going to point out to you that applying for ACV is a powerful reminder to Greenwich Council whom they are accountable to, and for that reason alone it's worth doing. Saved me the bother, but I thought I'd mention it anyway, as its important :-) There are now wider issues regarding GC's conduct raised by yesterday's Voice.
We're on the same page, Prague, don't worry about that. :-)
With respect I want to consider something else in Mark Kleinman's article. I will quote word for word:
'That's partly because Slater and his fellow owners are seeking roughly £40m for Charlton, according to one financier who enquired about the club's availability last month. Instead he offered in the region of £25m and believes that as a commercial concern, it isn't worth a penny more.'
The paragraph is about the very slim chance that a credible bidder will emerge.
OK.
So was the 'enquiring financier' never serious but on a fishing expedition? Does it mean that there is indeed some interest out there at the right price? If there was a serious enquiry, who might it have come from (it wasn't me, I can only afford 24.5, sorry).
2012 (actual) to 2013 (budget) - all £000 Net cash from operating activities (4,763) to (6,438) Net cash from investing activities (405) to (150) Capex and financial investment (784) to (1,632)
Cash outflow before financing (5,952) to (8,220) Financing (5,767) to (8,125) Decrease in cash in year (185) to (95)
Thanks - so it's capex/finacial investments up by a million - repayment to RM? And the cash outflow from operating is probably up because of smaller payments from other clubs and NOT because the normal month to month position is any different.
It is very clear that the financial investment needs to become a positive number - not to "fund our hobby" as Kings Hill puts it but to compete for promotion and make this a viable business... simples
Thanks - so it's capex/finacial investments up by a million - repayment to RM? And the cash outflow from operating is probably up because of smaller payments from other clubs and NOT because the normal month to month position is any different.
It is very clear that the financial investment needs to become a positive number - not to "fund our hobby" as Kings Hill puts it but to compete for promotion and make this a viable business... simples
Net transfer income is positive, up year on year, and well over budget.
As before the Trust forecast funding requirement to be the same as operating losses of £7M because the depreciation of £1M is not cash but the bank mortgage is paid back c. £1M every year... The main thing is does this alter the picture for this season? I don't think so - still losing £500K per month, looking for a buyer and needing x to push the squad up the table, although as of yesterday there isn't much further to go down!
Regards my post VOV-revelations, There may have been other threads posted, as one poster threaded, posted...or posted a thread to inform me, however, reading the revelations myself yesterday for the first time in print, rather than hearing of speculative rumours, then I believe these revelations should be kept in the spotlight. Apathy, that's what happened when we left The Valley twice before, not that leaving The Valley is the main concern, the long term situation for the club is. Hopefully Matt will give a reason why he left, as he's now on board VOV.
I must say, initial thoughts when reading the VOTV yesterday were "There's a great big Valley Gold advert on the back, presumably paid for by the club.. Why on earth are they officially supporting this when it's ripping them to shreds?" - that's not a criticism at all by the way, merely an observation.
Given the content, I had assumed the club would be rather strongly against the distribution of the VOTV, I'm even surprised that Rick is able to do this given current/pending legalities. However, I must say - I'm very grateful that he is doing it - and unlike some, I'm more than able to gloss over the slight digs at the board ("PT Prothero", "Success cannot be attributed to.." and so on) - as he's giving us a very valuable service. I am also delighted at Matt Wrights future involvement.
As for the actual content itself? Wow. Not quite sure what to say to be honest, was glued to those first 4/5 pages for a while. Made me want to find out more, but I don't think there's more to be found out sadly. I'm very much appreciative of all the members on here (Prague for example) who have helped turn over many a stone, and members such as Razil who have helped form other movements.
I must concede I haven't read the Valley Review, so I haven't seen the piece in there regarding the "£40,000,000" headline from a few weeks ago. I had my priorities set and gave my money to the VOTV first, the chip van second, Bartrams third.. then didn't have a fiver on me for the Valley Review.
Indeed due to the amount vg contributes its no surprise they are currently hosted by cafc. I doubt they would have paid for the ad in votv much like we didnt charge them to advertise in TNT, or indeed any other things castrust.org are doing and hoping to help VG with in the future
The ad appears by decision of the Charlton Club (Valley Gold) committee and the space is indeed donated by VOTV, on the same basis as in the previous issue and indeed on the same basis as the CAST ad appeared on the back of the previous issue.
Still, I would encourage their complacency because it only serves the opposition. All this might put the council in a difficult position regarding approval of the ACV application. Turn it down and it exposes their plans. Approve it and it might be a political nightmare to be seen to be party to the club leaving the Valley in the mid-term.
Well in the current circumstances of might that, could they, will they, it might at least give an indication as to the attitude/policy of the council. By the way, the lapsed planning application on the Valley has lapsed, and in the words of Jessica the planning officer was 'highly unlikely to have been approved even if it had been resubmitted'. I went down and spoke to her about this time last year. (I think it was May) when the Landsdowne mews debacle debacle got debated.I think everyone knows your views on the ACV Rikofold, or at least the shortcomings of the ACV as at present. Trouble is until we get the ACV we will not be informed of these types of rumours/plans/discussions at least by the board. I think what you have is a group that oppose moving from the Valley, to another group who would consider it. And just to confirm again I am in the first group, and of course one of the people behind the ACV application.
always a good read. Thought the Stevie Brown interview very enlightening. And now we know why AB spent some time in PVs presence without mentioning that issue.
always a good read. Thought the Stevie Brown interview very enlightening. And now we know why AB spent some time in PVs presence without mentioning that issue.
Correct. I do think it is a very strong issue all round.
I know the real talking point has been the finance article, but for me I really think the Les Reed article was excellent. It was good to hear his side of the story for the first time. I'd like to wish him well, but I just don't like Southampton.
I know the real talking point has been the finance article, but for me I really think the Les Reed article was excellent. It was good to hear his side of the story for the first time. I'd like to wish him well, but I just don't like Southampton.
I agree. As I said in another thread, some very pertinent remarks about loans, and Southampton's approach to player recruitment. The mad Italian not quite as mad as he looked when he sacked Adkins
A move from the Valley would be an emotional dagger to the heart to many of us, but I do think it is reasonable for any club to regularly investigate/appraise the option of relocation – providing it isn’t too far away from its supporters and there are clear financial benefits in both the short and long term of course. It is important that any move is in the best interests of the club – Coventry City can testify that a move to a gleaming new stadium was not a great thing for them when playing fortunes went downhill and the rent became prohibitive.
If a move was right for Charlton though, I’d expect fans to ultimately accept it as Arsenal and fans of other clubs who have moved in recent years have. If the move was engineered to line the pockets of departing owners, that would be another kettle of fish!
However, because it was mentioned – I don’t think it means it will definitely haoppen!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the two things AB decided, quite rightly imo, not to reveal.
You're suprised no one has mentioned something that wasn't mentioned?
He means information that was in the prospectus, but that Rick says in the article that they decided not to publish.
For one the prospectus included all player salaries, and the article makes clear they didn't publish them out of respect for Powell and for team morale. Obviously the right decision - would have done no one any good for that info to be in the public domain.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the two things AB decided, quite rightly imo, not to reveal.
You're suprised no one has mentioned something that wasn't mentioned?
The word was "reveal". The two issues were mentioned, just not fully revealed.
So what was your take on the article by the Sky News Financial writer on the prospectus put together by CAFC to sell the Club? You've long been saying that there are few if any facts, well now there are a lot more.
I know it must be harder and harder for you to not break your own rule of "never change your mind as a result of an internet debate" but really. : - )
Aside from the main articles I thought the Les Reed piece was really interesting, pleased to see he came across very well. And Brownie's take on Curbs was quite revealing especially about his reaction after Brownie had headed a post to clear a ball off the line!
Comments
I will quote word for word:
'That's partly because Slater and his fellow owners are seeking roughly £40m for Charlton, according to one financier who enquired about the club's availability last month. Instead he offered in the region of £25m and believes that as a commercial concern, it isn't worth a penny more.'
The paragraph is about the very slim chance that a credible bidder will emerge.
OK.
So was the 'enquiring financier' never serious but on a fishing expedition?
Does it mean that there is indeed some interest out there at the right price?
If there was a serious enquiry, who might it have come from (it wasn't me, I can only afford 24.5, sorry).
2012 (actual) to 2013 (budget) - all £000
Net cash from operating activities (4,763) to (6,438)
Net cash from investing activities (405) to (150)
Capex and financial investment (784) to (1,632)
Cash outflow before financing (5,952) to (8,220)
Financing (5,767) to (8,125)
Decrease in cash in year (185) to (95)
Thanks - so it's capex/finacial investments up by a million - repayment to RM? And the cash outflow from operating is probably up because of smaller payments from other clubs and NOT because the normal month to month position is any different.
It is very clear that the financial investment needs to become a positive number - not to "fund our hobby" as Kings Hill puts it but to compete for promotion and make this a viable business... simples
Given the content, I had assumed the club would be rather strongly against the distribution of the VOTV, I'm even surprised that Rick is able to do this given current/pending legalities. However, I must say - I'm very grateful that he is doing it - and unlike some, I'm more than able to gloss over the slight digs at the board ("PT Prothero", "Success cannot be attributed to.." and so on) - as he's giving us a very valuable service. I am also delighted at Matt Wrights future involvement.
As for the actual content itself? Wow. Not quite sure what to say to be honest, was glued to those first 4/5 pages for a while. Made me want to find out more, but I don't think there's more to be found out sadly. I'm very much appreciative of all the members on here (Prague for example) who have helped turn over many a stone, and members such as Razil who have helped form other movements.
I must concede I haven't read the Valley Review, so I haven't seen the piece in there regarding the "£40,000,000" headline from a few weeks ago. I had my priorities set and gave my money to the VOTV first, the chip van second, Bartrams third.. then didn't have a fiver on me for the Valley Review.
I see I was wrong to think I was wrong..
Well in the current circumstances of might that, could they, will they, it might at least give an indication as to the attitude/policy of the council.
By the way, the lapsed planning application on the Valley has lapsed, and in the words of Jessica the planning officer was 'highly unlikely to have been approved even if it had been resubmitted'. I went down and spoke to her about this time last year. (I think it was May) when the Landsdowne mews debacle debacle got debated.I think everyone knows your views on the ACV Rikofold, or at least the shortcomings of the ACV as at present. Trouble is until we get the ACV we will not be informed of these types of rumours/plans/discussions at least by the board. I think what you have is a group that oppose moving from the Valley, to another group who would consider it. And just to confirm again I am in the first group, and of course one of the people behind the ACV application.
However without VOTV we probably wouldn't be aware of The Valley situation.
If a move was right for Charlton though, I’d expect fans to ultimately accept it as Arsenal and fans of other clubs who have moved in recent years have. If the move was engineered to line the pockets of departing owners, that would be another kettle of fish!
However, because it was mentioned – I don’t think it means it will definitely haoppen!
For one the prospectus included all player salaries, and the article makes clear they didn't publish them out of respect for Powell and for team morale. Obviously the right decision - would have done no one any good for that info to be in the public domain.
Can't remember the second thing right now.
So what was your take on the article by the Sky News Financial writer on the prospectus put together by CAFC to sell the Club? You've long been saying that there are few if any facts, well now there are a lot more.
I know it must be harder and harder for you to not break your own rule of "never change your mind as a result of an internet debate" but really. : - )
The prospective back of the shirt sponsor's name