This Perhaps CAFC will try a cup run this season - certainly the Trust would be in favour! Benchmarking the club against both competitors and potential is a way forwards... Winning games in league and cup fairly key so perhaps the club need to weigh up the opportunity cost of not signing players?
I don't see a critique of the clubs commercial performance anywhere in terms of valid comparisons and a cohesive strategy to improve revenue to meet potential and support the footballing side... perhaps this is an area that the Trust might help address?
Firstly, thanks, ever so much, for pointing this out. If only we'd known, say, twenty years ago, that the opportunity cost of not signing players was that we'd win fewer games and this would, potentially, mean fewer cup runs and, therefore, less income! This alone is justification for the Supporters' Trust running the club!
Secondly, maybe you could enlighten us as to how the Trust is going to come up with a 'cohesive strategy to improve revenue to meet potential and support the footballing side'?
I'm, really, really, sorry if it looks like I'm having a pop at you, or the Trust, SR but sometimes the things you come out with frighten the life out of me!
glad I could help ... best keep things simple sometimes...winning games helps... Incidentally CAFC did know that 20 years ago which is why so many clubs copy what we did at that time... by the way its a game of 90 minutes with two halves if that helps?
Too much irony perhaps so to be straight forward: any club thinking it can sit back may be in for a rude awakening. Improving the squad is a continuous activity and while some think it might be about owners paying for the fans dreams perhaps it is the reverse which is true... unless both sides have an understanding of where it is all going
What, I think, worries me is that there are lots of academic/business phrases used by the CL members that are involved with the Trust, but there is very little in the way of substance or solutions. For example, I was a little horrified that you would question AB's access to a database of 66,000 fans that have been built up over years and suggest that a sample of them could possibly give any indication that the whole dBase (that has been managed by a dedicated fan and, clearly, very intelligent man) would give. You went on to confirm that your results were similar to the club dBase (even though they were, in fact, not the same) and that this proves that the Trust's work was worth while.
Just so as to avoid any doubt, I think that the Trust is important. I think that the Trust can achieve things that can't be achieved by any other type of body, and it has my full support toward those aims.
Where I struggle, sometimes, is that many of the posts on here (and it is, by no means aimed directly at just you SR) give the impression that those that are involved with the trust don't really have a plan. It comes across as 'What ever the problem is the Trust can solve it' and 'With more members the trust can tackle this issue'. There is little information provided as to how the trust can do any of these things, but more worryingly is the continued use of phrases that mean nothing unless they expand the context and the detail of what the action plan is. One such example of this is 'cohesive strategy to improve revenue to meet potential and support the footballing side'. For the purposes of this post I'm reluctant (because I'm, naturally, modest) to tell you that I have an MBA, and I don't believe that (1) the trust has any idea what that strategy would be, and (2) that many, better positioned, people have tried to tackle this problem in the past.
It is all too easy to make grand statements, and there is a place for them sometimes (all be it that they are only really useful to make those that don't understand agree or, literally, shut up) but they are, in my view, both easy to throw around and a little insulting to those, like Airman Brown, Wendy Perfect, Richard Murray, Peter Varney, Ben Hayes and many others, that have been trying to find solutions to these problems for many years.
The Trust is a baby and it needs help and nurturing and someone like you Kings Hill would aid it , so get involved from the inside rather than on the outside
I was a little horrified that you would question AB's access to a database of 66,000 fans that have been built up over years and suggest that a sample of them could possibly give any indication that the whole dBase (that has been managed by a dedicated fan and, clearly, very intelligent man) would give. You went on to confirm that your results were similar to the club dBase (even though they were, in fact, not the same) and that this proves that the Trust's work was worth while.
Any business should know where their customers, or in this case fans, are based, therefore you can better direct marketing and other develop other issues - eg Valley Express to serve them and also understand/anticipate some of the issues that they face regarding travel etc. Plus if I were to run a marketing/advertising campaign it would give me an idea of where to spend my money. A sample that broadly supports the existing more factual evidence is what I'd expect to find, I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be identical as after all it's only a sample.
Where I struggle, sometimes, is that many of the posts on here (and it is, by no means aimed directly at just you SR) give the impression that those that are involved with the trust don't really have a plan. It comes across as 'What ever the problem is the Trust can solve it' </
Why must the Trust have a specific plan? What is important at this stage is that the various Trustees and interested members develop a knowledge of how football runs as a business and industry and of the issues facing both the game and specifically at clubs like Charlton. It also helps to build credibility and in negotiations/discussions with the club and the Trust is likely to be taken far more seriously it can demonstrate an understanding of say FFP and its implications for football club. Also there are a lot of experienced business people who who are Trustees/Trust members who have considerable knowledge in a diverse range of fields - be they IT, legal, consultancy, marketing etc. Who's to say that these skills are not transferable, or that they cannot offer ideas?
Bear in mind also that the campaign to return to the Valley was fan led and took place at a club that had traditionally ignored its fans. Don't be fooled that it was all down to Roger Alwen, Richard Murray et al who signed the cheques. They were hard headed businessmen who appreciated that a return to SE7 would be well supported by the fans who demonstrated a passion for the club and therefore a return would be financially viable, that is why they invested their hard earned to get us back to the Valley and then more money to extend and develop the stadium. A Trust which is knowledgeable and conversant in the practicalities of running a football club working alongside the Club's directors can offer the same kind of partnership again. It might be that the trust will achieve nothing of any merit - but given the financial plate-spinning going on by TJ and MS and the debts being built up I feel more confident about the future and someone being able to deal with the fallout knowing that the Trust is around. Down the road at Pompey their club is now run by a Trust - despite there being better offers on the table their Trust was considered to be in the best position to make the make the right decisions to run the club properly. We'll have to see where that goes but after several years of disastrous management by the "experts" they endured several spells in administration and are now in L2. I hope that nothing similar happens to Charlton but if it does then perhaps the Trust will be able to perform the same role?
Kings Hill - I think we are mis communicating here? As oohaah suggests, come on board and give the Trust a hand. I speak to some of the people you mention simply to get an insight into the magic that was applied in the 1990s to lift CAFC up through the leagues so no disrespect intended there... I tend to agree that bandying around consultant speak on here is not going to adress let alone solve any challenges which CAFC faces today... good that I stop now before I look to explore how to leverage synergies lol
The Trust is a baby and it needs help and nurturing and someone like you Kings Hill would aid it , so get involved from the inside rather than on the outside
This. And to add, that the Trust guys are like everyone else on here, ordinary Joes in terms of "wealth". They have jobs they have to hold down and families to feed. They do not of course earn a penny from this fragile organisation called the Trust.
It reminds me sadly of when we had a Supporter's Director. For a lot of us this was supposed to be the final confirmation after the return to the Valley that the supporters would always have a say in the running of the club. Sadly for those who were elected it turned out to be a pain in the ass. Only a small proportion of fans actually bothered to vote, thus reducing the mandate in the eyes of the other directors. But a suspiciously large number slagged off the SD directly and in various forums. Who needs that shit, when you are a volunteer who just wants to see CAFC safe and ultimately prosperous? Especially when, as became increasingly clear (but could never be proved for obvious reasons) a lot of the critics hadn't bothered to vote in the first place.
To me merchandising is all about saturation. How many real Yankee fans live in bexleyheath compared to the amount of hats that are sold? If people are wearing clobber, other people especially kids want it. If you can't buy a Charlton shirt or t shirt with 'Super Solly' on it you can't drive demand. A range of t shirts sold in local shops might be a start.
I fear the club may be starting to try to maximize its match day hospitality income in a bad way. Last season's Celebration Suite has now been renamed the Keith Peacock Suite and it appears that the cost has virtually doubled for basically the same type of food. If this is the case we will need to rethink our match day experience, because we can't afford to pay twice as much for basically the same package as last year. Have they heard of 'killing the goose that lays the golden egg'?
"This is one of the things that we could take from the USA perhaps? Sellers walking around the stands selling drinks or sweets etc to customers in their seats? "
I can just imagine it, "When I was young" being drowned out by the cries of "Sit Daahhnn!"
Many moons ago I went to watch LA Angels (baseball) at Anaheim Stadium (outskirts of LA, near Disneyland). Although our seats were high up and 'cheap' one of the main things I noticed was that there was enough legroom to walk along the row without disturbing others allowing selling to customers in their seats. Perhaps this will be built into our new stadium ............ ?
"This is one of the things that we could take from the USA perhaps? Sellers walking around the stands selling drinks or sweets etc to customers in their seats? "
I can just imagine it, "When I was young" being drowned out by the cries of "Sit Daahhnn!"
Many moons ago I went to watch LA Angels (baseball) at Anaheim Stadium (outskirts of LA, near Disneyland). Although our seats were high up and 'cheap' one of the main things I noticed was that there was enough legroom to walk along the row without disturbing others allowing selling to customers in their seats. Perhaps this will be built into our new stadium ............ ?
At the Thailand v Australia world cup qualifier last year McDonalds would deliver to your seat!
I fear the club may be starting to try to maximize its match day hospitality income in a bad way. Last season's Celebration Suite has now been renamed the Keith Peacock Suite and it appears that the cost has virtually doubled for basically the same type of food. If this is the case we will need to rethink our match day experience, because we can't afford to pay twice as much for basically the same package as last year. Have they heard of 'killing the goose that lays the golden egg'?
It may well be that many ordinary fans are priced out of that experience, but if they are looking to maximise profit (or minimise total losses) it may well make business sense. I'm sure they've worked out their demand curves and will have a good idea how many people are likely to use the suite at any given price. On an offering like that where there's limited supply they don't need every fan to buy, so they can price it high. They may only need the richest 5% of fans to afford it (a guess for arguments sake) to fill it up. Tough on those of us that would like to have a pre-match meal but are now stuck with a greaseburger or a pie, but as long as they get the 200 (or whatever the capacity is) high payers in the suite, they are doing better on their terms.
They may also raise the bar on the food and service.
Having said that, and I have only done this once, I found both the food and those 'looking after us' to be faultless, and I have been to some very expensive events in the past, so I'm not comparing it to the local Harvester.
I fear the club may be starting to try to maximize its match day hospitality income in a bad way. Last season's Celebration Suite has now been renamed the Keith Peacock Suite and it appears that the cost has virtually doubled for basically the same type of food. If this is the case we will need to rethink our match day experience, because we can't afford to pay twice as much for basically the same package as last year. Have they heard of 'killing the goose that lays the golden egg'?
It may well be that many ordinary fans are priced out of that experience, but if they are looking to maximise profit (or minimise total losses) it may well make business sense. I'm sure they've worked out their demand curves and will have a good idea how many people are likely to use the suite at any given price. On an offering like that where there's limited supply they don't need every fan to buy, so they can price it high. They may only need the richest 5% of fans to afford it (a guess for arguments sake) to fill it up. Tough on those of us that would like to have a pre-match meal but are now stuck with a greaseburger or a pie, but as long as they get the 200 (or whatever the capacity is) high payers in the suite, they are doing better on their terms.
I agree. I've never been able to get excited about overpriced matchday hospitality. Either the club gets it right and maximises profit or it doesn't. Over time it will adjust and find what works best, unless the management are idiots.The club still offers a range of hospitality, perhaps not to suit all pockets or requirements, but certainly a spread.
The latest management will look at things anew and will try things out. They will not have the experience of the previous regime in this area and may make mistakes because of that, but if so they will hopefully learn from them.
SR what problems at the club do you think the trust can solve?
Stu and others The Trust was established less than a year ago and I believe that this was the third attempt to set one up. It has surveyed the fans at regular intervals and the committee has followed the message given by fans about the main priorities: survey the fans about their views; look at the finances of CAFC and other championship clubs; establish an independent voice to influence (not control) how the club is run and engage positively with the club. The relationship between the Trust and club is building slowly but surely and I am sure there will be bumps in the road. The Trust itself is also growing as it reaches more and more fans through its activities.
As BFR so eloquently states, having got the Trust vehicle up and running the priority has to be looking at a partnership with the club as well as researching the finances and launching initiatives like ACV. I am afraid it would be premature to announce what that partnership with the club might look like... but ACV is certainly here and the last time I looked the e-petition was approaching 850. The Trust hopes to run a stall at the next couple of games which will give fans a chance to sign up and to participate.
Regarding commercial strategy of the club - my exchanges with Airman were clearly exploring what might make sense, asking a few questions and making a few challenges. We will see if the club wish to discuss this and where that activity might go. As you probably know the Trust has already published some work on FFP and released an analysis/estimate of last season's losses. This was set at £7M which appears materially accurate and was published last March.
So what problems can the Trust solve? solid communication with the fans (by the Trust), engagement with the club, developing a vision of where things might go - anything else depends upon the clubs appetite and specific initiatives. Given that the thread is entitled Michael Slater's Programme notes perhaps we should return to exploring and decoding that?!
I don't have mine to hand because at £5 and with half of it printed upside down I limited myself to one purchase per Grumpy group. I only use it to rest my betting slip on anyway as the editorial is so banal but I do remember the Slater column.
My take on the column was that Mr Slater was arguing the reason we hadn't signed new players was the new Financial Fair Play rules which limits transfers and player registrations based on turnover. I think he also said that there would be a maximum loss of £5 million allowed before sanctions would apply.
He then went on to point out that other teams have bigger revenue than we do and that this was all part of a sensible management master-plan implying that he was in complete control of the situation.
My question was, what exactly are those financial fair play rules and is it the real reason we still have a rubbish midfield?
Whereas elsewhere the club is arguing that it is well placed to comply with the FFP rules, which it might be, providing the owners are prepared to fund the club via equity instead of just loans.
The club can have an FFP loss of £8m this season - the actual figure in 2012/3 was expected to be £4.3m - but it's only allowed £3m of that in loans, so a minimum £1.3m would have to be equity. The figure of £5m is for 2015/6, which realistically I don't think Mr Slater needs to worry about.
Thanks for that Airman but are you suggesting that Michael Slater is being disingenuous by implying that FFP rules / relatively low turnover are the reason that new signings have been so modest or does he have a valid point?
And sorry for being thick but why should the board not be worried about 2015-16? If nothing else than as a business plan to present to a Chinese/Arab/Russian/Malaysian squillionaires?
Last Saturday there were insufficient bookings for the Celebration Suite so they had to use the upper part of the new Keith Peacock Suite for the few bookings they had and the downstairs part of the Keith Peacock Suite was half empty. Surely filling the places and creating a better atmosphere, but at a cheaper rate is better than half full suites with little or no atmosphere. I think the club may have to rethink its policy.
Last Saturday there were insufficient bookings for the Celebration Suite so they had to use the upper part of the new Keith Peacock Suite for the few bookings they had and the downstairs part of the Keith Peacock Suite was half empty. Surely filling the places and creating a better atmosphere, but at a cheaper rate is better than half full suites with little or no atmosphere. I think the club may have to rethink its policy.
You may be right, but I still think it's reasonable for an inexperienced manager (presumably Ben Kensell - formerly Arsenal football club) to proceed on the basis of trial and error, providing he/they learn quickly from their mistakes.
I think it's clear that there is limited confidence in the knowledge of the few experienced staff who remain in senior roles in the business, but actually Paul Ellison and Dave Archer always favoured higher prices in my experience.
Last Saturday there were insufficient bookings for the Celebration Suite so they had to use the upper part of the new Keith Peacock Suite for the few bookings they had and the downstairs part of the Keith Peacock Suite was half empty. Surely filling the places and creating a better atmosphere, but at a cheaper rate is better than half full suites with little or no atmosphere. I think the club may have to rethink its policy.
You may be surprised at the relationship between cost and take-up and profit. I don't know, obviously, but there is a point that profit is maximised with having fewer people paying much more. For example, having 50 people paying £50 a head makes more than having 95 people paying £25 a head. The costs of supplying the service reduce (even if only slightly) and the potential for a bumper pay day is increased if you have spare capacity.
I'm just guessing at numbers, but I think we should also give them the benefit of the doubt as they might just be going through the process of establishing what price to charge, and often the only way to know is to try it.
Last Saturday there were insufficient bookings for the Celebration Suite so they had to use the upper part of the new Keith Peacock Suite for the few bookings they had and the downstairs part of the Keith Peacock Suite was half empty. Surely filling the places and creating a better atmosphere, but at a cheaper rate is better than half full suites with little or no atmosphere. I think the club may have to rethink its policy.
You may be right, but I still think it's reasonable for an inexperienced manager (presumably Ben Kensell - formerly Arsenal football club) to proceed on the basis of trial and error, providing he/they learn quickly from their mistakes.
I think it's clear that there is limited confidence in the knowledge of the few experienced staff who remain in senior roles in the business, but actually Paul Ellison and Dave Archer always favoured higher prices in my experience.
I thought we employed BK (fAfc) because he was experienced?
Last Saturday there were insufficient bookings for the Celebration Suite so they had to use the upper part of the new Keith Peacock Suite for the few bookings they had and the downstairs part of the Keith Peacock Suite was half empty. Surely filling the places and creating a better atmosphere, but at a cheaper rate is better than half full suites with little or no atmosphere. I think the club may have to rethink its policy.
You may be right, but I still think it's reasonable for an inexperienced manager (presumably Ben Kensell - formerly Arsenal football club) to proceed on the basis of trial and error, providing he/they learn quickly from their mistakes.
I think it's clear that there is limited confidence in the knowledge of the few experienced staff who remain in senior roles in the business, but actually Paul Ellison and Dave Archer always favoured higher prices in my experience.
I thought we employed BK (fAfc) because he was experienced?
Well, I don't think his experience was in sales and marketing, but delivery of events, etc. However, that may be doing him an injustice. Regardless, he isn't experienced in terms of the Charlton market, which is the point.
Proof if any were needed that Slater reads Charlton Life! He clearly read the comments on here about the matchday experience and has taken immediate steps to dismiss Paul Ellison.
Comments
Just so as to avoid any doubt, I think that the Trust is important. I think that the Trust can achieve things that can't be achieved by any other type of body, and it has my full support toward those aims.
Where I struggle, sometimes, is that many of the posts on here (and it is, by no means aimed directly at just you SR) give the impression that those that are involved with the trust don't really have a plan. It comes across as 'What ever the problem is the Trust can solve it' and 'With more members the trust can tackle this issue'. There is little information provided as to how the trust can do any of these things, but more worryingly is the continued use of phrases that mean nothing unless they expand the context and the detail of what the action plan is. One such example of this is 'cohesive strategy to improve revenue to meet potential and support the footballing side'. For the purposes of this post I'm reluctant (because I'm, naturally, modest) to tell you that I have an MBA, and I don't believe that (1) the trust has any idea what that strategy would be, and (2) that many, better positioned, people have tried to tackle this problem in the past.
It is all too easy to make grand statements, and there is a place for them sometimes (all be it that they are only really useful to make those that don't understand agree or, literally, shut up) but they are, in my view, both easy to throw around and a little insulting to those, like Airman Brown, Wendy Perfect, Richard Murray, Peter Varney, Ben Hayes and many others, that have been trying to find solutions to these problems for many years.
Any business should know where their customers, or in this case fans, are based, therefore you can better direct marketing and other develop other issues - eg Valley Express to serve them and also understand/anticipate some of the issues that they face regarding travel etc. Plus if I were to run a marketing/advertising campaign it would give me an idea of where to spend my money. A sample that broadly supports the existing more factual evidence is what I'd expect to find, I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be identical as after all it's only a sample.
Where I struggle, sometimes, is that many of the posts on here (and it is, by no means aimed directly at just you SR) give the impression that those that are involved with the trust don't really have a plan. It comes across as 'What ever the problem is the Trust can solve it' </
Why must the Trust have a specific plan? What is important at this stage is that the various Trustees and interested members develop a knowledge of how football runs as a business and industry and of the issues facing both the game and specifically at clubs like Charlton. It also helps to build credibility and in negotiations/discussions with the club and the Trust is likely to be taken far more seriously it can demonstrate an understanding of say FFP and its implications for football club. Also there are a lot of experienced business people who who are Trustees/Trust members who have considerable knowledge in a diverse range of fields - be they IT, legal, consultancy, marketing etc. Who's to say that these skills are not transferable, or that they cannot offer ideas?
Bear in mind also that the campaign to return to the Valley was fan led and took place at a club that had traditionally ignored its fans. Don't be fooled that it was all down to Roger Alwen, Richard Murray et al who signed the cheques. They were hard headed businessmen who appreciated that a return to SE7 would be well supported by the fans who demonstrated a passion for the club and therefore a return would be financially viable, that is why they invested their hard earned to get us back to the Valley and then more money to extend and develop the stadium. A Trust which is knowledgeable and conversant in the practicalities of running a football club working alongside the Club's directors can offer the same kind of partnership again. It might be that the trust will achieve nothing of any merit - but given the financial plate-spinning going on by TJ and MS and the debts being built up I feel more confident about the future and someone being able to deal with the fallout knowing that the Trust is around. Down the road at Pompey their club is now run by a Trust - despite there being better offers on the table their Trust was considered to be in the best position to make the make the right decisions to run the club properly. We'll have to see where that goes but after several years of disastrous management by the "experts" they endured several spells in administration and are now in L2. I hope that nothing similar happens to Charlton but if it does then perhaps the Trust will be able to perform the same role?
I speak to some of the people you mention simply to get an insight into the magic that was applied in the 1990s to lift CAFC up through the leagues so no disrespect intended there...
I tend to agree that bandying around consultant speak on here is not going to adress let alone solve any challenges which CAFC faces today... good that I stop now before I look to explore how to leverage synergies lol
It reminds me sadly of when we had a Supporter's Director. For a lot of us this was supposed to be the final confirmation after the return to the Valley that the supporters would always have a say in the running of the club. Sadly for those who were elected it turned out to be a pain in the ass. Only a small proportion of fans actually bothered to vote, thus reducing the mandate in the eyes of the other directors. But a suspiciously large number slagged off the SD directly and in various forums. Who needs that shit, when you are a volunteer who just wants to see CAFC safe and ultimately prosperous? Especially when, as became increasingly clear (but could never be proved for obvious reasons) a lot of the critics hadn't bothered to vote in the first place.
Having said that, and I have only done this once, I found both the food and those 'looking after us' to be faultless, and I have been to some very expensive events in the past, so I'm not comparing it to the local Harvester.
I agree. I've never been able to get excited about overpriced matchday hospitality. Either the club gets it right and maximises profit or it doesn't. Over time it will adjust and find what works best, unless the management are idiots.The club still offers a range of hospitality, perhaps not to suit all pockets or requirements, but certainly a spread.
The latest management will look at things anew and will try things out. They will not have the experience of the previous regime in this area and may make mistakes because of that, but if so they will hopefully learn from them.
The Trust was established less than a year ago and I believe that this was the third attempt to set one up. It has surveyed the fans at regular intervals and the committee has followed the message given by fans about the main priorities:
survey the fans about their views; look at the finances of CAFC and other championship clubs; establish an independent voice to influence (not control) how the club is run and engage positively with the club.
The relationship between the Trust and club is building slowly but surely and I am sure there will be bumps in the road. The Trust itself is also growing as it reaches more and more fans through its activities.
As BFR so eloquently states, having got the Trust vehicle up and running the priority has to be looking at a partnership with the club as well as researching the finances and launching initiatives like ACV. I am afraid it would be premature to announce what that partnership with the club might look like... but ACV is certainly here and the last time I looked the e-petition was approaching 850. The Trust hopes to run a stall at the next couple of games which will give fans a chance to sign up and to participate.
Regarding commercial strategy of the club - my exchanges with Airman were clearly exploring what might make sense, asking a few questions and making a few challenges. We will see if the club wish to discuss this and where that activity might go. As you probably know the Trust has already published some work on FFP and released an analysis/estimate of last season's losses. This was set at £7M which appears materially accurate and was published last March.
So what problems can the Trust solve? solid communication with the fans (by the Trust), engagement with the club, developing a vision of where things might go - anything else depends upon the clubs appetite and specific initiatives. Given that the thread is entitled Michael Slater's Programme notes perhaps we should return to exploring and decoding that?!
And sorry for being thick but why should the board not be worried about 2015-16? If nothing else than as a business plan to present to a Chinese/Arab/Russian/Malaysian squillionaires?
I think it's clear that there is limited confidence in the knowledge of the few experienced staff who remain in senior roles in the business, but actually Paul Ellison and Dave Archer always favoured higher prices in my experience.
I'm just guessing at numbers, but I think we should also give them the benefit of the doubt as they might just be going through the process of establishing what price to charge, and often the only way to know is to try it.
He clearly read the comments on here about the matchday experience and has taken immediate steps to dismiss Paul Ellison.