I play football on Saturday afternoons so haven't had a season ticket for a while. It is therefore pretty disingenuous of me to claim that I am boycotting this season.
However, my dad has asked me if I want to go to the Oldham game with him on Tuesday evening. It is the first instance this season where we've both been around to meet up for a midweek game, which has become a bit of a tradition since we both traded in our season tickets when I decided to opt for playing as opposed to watching.
Hard to turn down an opportunity to watch the football with my dad if I'm honest as we don't get to see a huge amount of one another.
I play football on Saturday afternoons so haven't had a season ticket for a while. It is therefore pretty disingenuous of me to claim that I am boycotting this season.
However, my dad has asked me if I want to go to the Oldham game with him on Tuesday evening. It is the first instance this season where we've both been around to meet up for a midweek game, which has become a bit of a tradition since we both traded in our season tickets when I decided to opt for playing as opposed to watching.
Hard to turn down an opportunity to watch the football with my dad if I'm honest as we don't get to see a huge amount of one another.
You should both go. Definitely.
I had a serious illness last year rather out of the blue (now recovered hopefully). Go and enjoy each others company whilst you can as you never know what the future holds.
whilst I respect the opinions of those who choose not to attend, I believe that we have reached the stage of either come in and support the team or stay away. I agree that the atmosphere at games is non existent but this can only harm the performance on the pitch and future recruitment. I, too,hate this regime but having committed to another season feel I must see it out. Perhaps if we have some success(which seems unlikely) they might just decide to sell up and go.However odious the regime is, they own the football club who we love so for me loyalty to the club overrides their involvement, but only for now and there may come I time when even the loyalist of supporters have had enough
...So does it really matter? Not if you do not have any ambition. Not if ultimately you only came for the beer. Does it really matter if the stadium is 2/3rds empty? Not if ultimately you only came for the beer. Does it really matter if the crowd sits in silence as the players struggle to perform? Not if ultimately you only came for the beer. Does it matter thousands have walked away? Not if ultimately you only came for the beer...
The only beers on offer are Fosters fizzy water and some indescribable keg effluent (Smith's, I believe). So does it really matter? It does if anyone is daft enough to go to a football match for a beer - they don't actually sell any. If you drink on the concourse you'll be drinking in what is effectively a walkway - a sterile concrete area with horrible acoustics, nowhere to sit and nowhere to stand without people barging past you. If you choose to drink in one of the 'lounges', you'll be in a room with all the atmosphere of a hotel reception on departure day. So does it really matter? It does if anyone is daft enough to go to a football match for a beer. No one is allowed to drink alcohol in sight of the pitch, so if you want to see the action you'll have to stop drinking. So does it really matter? It does if anyone is daft enough to go to a football match for a beer. If you drink at football you might not be trusted to drink from a proper glass, instead, your drink is likely to be served in a plastic beaker. So does it really matter? It does if you are an adult and not a six year old at a friend's birthday party. If you drink at football you'll be paying premium rates for the most inferior products on the market. So does it really matter? I does if anyone is daft enough to go to a football match for a beer. So all in all, drinking will only ever be of secondary importance to people going to the ground. People who are primarily interested in drinking tend to follow the centuries old tried and trusted method - they go to the pub.
Sadly a boycott is a short term solution to some not wanting to pay into Roland's pocket, that creates a long term gain for Roland, all the debt will be repaid for whatever he loses due to the boycotts and as such I doubt he cares.
Sadly a boycott is a short term solution to some not wanting to pay into Roland's pocket, that creates a long term gain for Roland, all the debt will be repaid for whatever he loses due to the boycotts and as such I doubt he cares.
Sorry Dazzler, I genuinely don't understand this can you explain please. Why is it a short term solution? Why is it a long term gain for Roland? Why will all debt be repaid?
I agree President, terrible atmosphere and quite depressing. I found that I had really mixed feelings today. As one of the boycotters I decided I would go, and I argued that others should too for Black and White day. As a protest though, everything seemed really low key. The majority of people were in black and white, but there was little in terms of anti-regime chanting even at the photoshoot and none that I heard in the ground. I found it really strange as well that as a boycotter, I was disappointed that more hadn't turned up to protest.
Confusing times, for me at least. On the one hand I wanted lots of people there, to make a loud and obvious anti-regime protest, on the other I was pleased they there was a low turnout as it seems that the boycotters are winning the day. Then again, as a Charlton fan it breaks my heart to see what these idiots have done to our club and how they've driven lifelong fans away. I guess what I took away from this overall is the exact opposite of you. The Brighton and Burnley protests were absolutely magnificent. We will never see the likes of them again, though. Too many people are either actively boycotting to beat the regime or are so passively pissed off that they won't return. Either way, today was an acid test and the outcome was that people won't turn up in big numbers as long as the regime are in control. If they aren't going to turn up, there's little point in trying to co-ordinate mass protests. Far better to build on what we've got going for us. Whatever the emotions of it, the sad truth is that very few people want to watch shit football in a toxic atmosphere. So I'd rather turn that weakness into a strength and rack-up the boycott.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to do the same though. I had a chat with Len Glover before the match. He was telling me how many generations of his family had followed Charlton. It's not realistic to expect everyone like Len to stop going. Even though I believe that it's our best hope.
The saddest thing for me though was at the end of the game, lots of people booed. Nothing new in that. I've heard it dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of times before. What I found sad was that I didn't care. In the past I used to get angry at the boo boys, now though I just think 'so what'. Because that team out on the pitch doesn't represent me, it represents them. Why should I care if people choose to boo them?
Have only read as far as this so it may have been answered further on but did you ask Len his opinion on the belgians &/or the boycott ?
Sadly a boycott is a short term solution to some not wanting to pay into Roland's pocket, that creates a long term gain for Roland, all the debt will be repaid for whatever he loses due to the boycotts and as such I doubt he cares.
Sorry Dazzler, I genuinely don't understand this can you explain please. Why is it a short term solution? Why is it a long term gain for Roland? Why will all debt be repaid?
I'd expect the debt to be repaid. I suppose I can't say 'it will be'. I could be wrong but I'd expect Roland to build his money owed plus interest into his sale price.
I think CARD's message was more effective when the ground had fewer empty seats and many more jeering and booing the owners etc and showing how upset our supporters and fans were.
I'm with Stig. I don't think your arguments hold water, Dazzler. Roland owns Staprix, so it's all his money in the end. Roland will NEVER get his money back. It's just a case of when he decides he no longer wants to fund the losses, and the boycott will accelerate the process of him getting to that point. Thus far it's been more about the stubborn old fool's pride than economic sense, or he'd have binned Pinocchio ages ago, but he surely can't let it go on like this for long. If Roly is worth £600m or whatever, £12m a year is still a loss he won't want to take indefinitely.
I'm with Stig. I don't think your arguments hold water, Dazzler. Roland owns Staprix, so it's all his money in the end. Roland will NEVER get his money back. It's just a case of when he decides he no longer wants to fund the losses, and the boycott will accelerate the process of him getting to that point. Thus far it's been more about the stubborn old fool's pride than economic sense, or he'd have binned Pinocchio ages ago, but he surely can't let it go on like this for long. If Roly is worth £600m or whatever, £12m a year is still a loss he won't want to take indefinitely.
Fair points if that is how it works, as I said 'I can't say it will be'
Let's hope you're right (and hopefully that I am wrong) and Roland's (Starprix) losses are non recoverable and they aren't ever owed back from CA Plc.
I'm with Stig. I don't think your arguments hold water, Dazzler. Roland owns Staprix, so it's all his money in the end. Roland will NEVER get his money back. It's just a case of when he decides he no longer wants to fund the losses, and the boycott will accelerate the process of him getting to that point. Thus far it's been more about the stubborn old fool's pride than economic sense, or he'd have binned Pinocchio ages ago, but he surely can't let it go on like this for long. If Roly is worth £600m or whatever, £12m a year is still a loss he won't want to take indefinitely.
Fair points if that is how it works, as I said 'I can't say it will be'
Let's hope you're right and his (and Starprix) losses are non refundable and they aren't ever owed back from CAFC Plc.
I think the point is more that we'll never reach the Prem under RD (where the TV money could potentially cover what he has spent), and no one will pay £40m+ plus for the club either (Staprix debt in 14/15 was up to £38m, likely to be more now). He's also charging 3% interest.
I'm with Stig. I don't think your arguments hold water, Dazzler. Roland owns Staprix, so it's all his money in the end. Roland will NEVER get his money back. It's just a case of when he decides he no longer wants to fund the losses, and the boycott will accelerate the process of him getting to that point. Thus far it's been more about the stubborn old fool's pride than economic sense, or he'd have binned Pinocchio ages ago, but he surely can't let it go on like this for long. If Roly is worth £600m or whatever, £12m a year is still a loss he won't want to take indefinitely.
As I mentioned in another thread, I believe that RD will lose any interest in us soon - we are only being treated as a plaything for Meire like a dog with a toy in its mouth. At some stage RD will decide that its time to dispose of us - he's had his 'fun'. Now, at that stage, there clearly isn't going to be anyone prepared to effectively pay for his and Meire's past mistakes and give him the full amount of what he wants. Therefore , the only way out for RD and KM to save face is to dispose of us in a way that portrays that he has got his money back , and that his plan 'works' - now , the only way he is going to be able to do that is to 'sell' to a friend/business partner who will be rewarded in other ways/financial avenues to take the hit- inthe same way as when he sold Standard Liege.
Therefore, it is my belief, that once he does sell, there will be another Belgian consortium who will buy the Club, however, RD will be funding it in some way via a accounting back-door method in Belgium- and they will effectively just be his puppets until such time as the club is fully disposed of.
...So does it really matter? Not if you do not have any ambition. Not if ultimately you only came for the beer. Does it really matter if the stadium is 2/3rds empty? Not if ultimately you only came for the beer. Does it really matter if the crowd sits in silence as the players struggle to perform? Not if ultimately you only came for the beer. Does it matter thousands have walked away? Not if ultimately you only came for the beer...
The only beers on offer are Fosters fizzy water and some indescribable keg effluent (Smith's, I believe). So does it really matter? It does if anyone is daft enough to go to a football match for a beer - they don't actually sell any. If you drink on the concourse you'll be drinking in what is effectively a walkway - a sterile concrete area with horrible acoustics, nowhere to sit and nowhere to stand without people barging past you. If you choose to drink in one of the 'lounges', you'll be in a room with all the atmosphere of a hotel reception on departure day. So does it really matter? It does if anyone is daft enough to go to a football match for a beer. No one is allowed to drink alcohol in sight of the pitch, so if you want to see the action you'll have to stop drinking. So does it really matter? It does if anyone is daft enough to go to a football match for a beer. If you drink at football you might not be trusted to drink from a proper glass, instead, your drink is likely to be served in a plastic beaker. So does it really matter? It does if you are an adult and not a six year old at a friend's birthday party. If you drink at football you'll be paying premium rates for the most inferior products on the market. So does it really matter? I does if anyone is daft enough to go to a football match for a beer. So all in all, drinking will only ever be of secondary importance to people going to the ground. People who are primarily interested in drinking tend to follow the centuries old tried and trusted method - they go to the pub.
Though the beer analogy is a bit repeated in Grapevines post. I think Grapevine is talking about the Meire version of a non committed customer. I am not sure Grapevine is really talking about the beer which as you point out is not very good and the setting is not very good either. It is pretty clear that Grapevine49 does not drink a lot of beer on the concourse. I think you are talking about the same thing.
Any strategy that is based on making money on sales around an inferior product is doomed to failure. That includes beer and the football product on the pitch. A non committed customer may not care much if the team loses but the quality of the product on offer is unlikely to get them to turn up in any sufficient quantity.
Yes vff, I wasn't really responding to Grapevine so much as using his structure to expand on the folly of Meire's ideas of the club being a place for social drinking. I think we're all drinking from the same handpump, so to speak.
Yes vff, I wasn't really responding to Grapevine so much as using his structure to expand on the folly of Meire's ideas of the club being a place for social drinking. I think we're all drinking from the same handpump, so to speak.
I'm with Stig. I don't think your arguments hold water, Dazzler. Roland owns Staprix, so it's all his money in the end. Roland will NEVER get his money back. It's just a case of when he decides he no longer wants to fund the losses, and the boycott will accelerate the process of him getting to that point. Thus far it's been more about the stubborn old fool's pride than economic sense, or he'd have binned Pinocchio ages ago, but he surely can't let it go on like this for long. If Roly is worth £600m or whatever, £12m a year is still a loss he won't want to take indefinitely.
Absolutely RD won't want to lose £12m a year not when he knows he can recoup half of that loss by selling Lookman for a minimum £6m. If he keeps scoring goals this will only inflate his price along with the inflated January window prices.
I would be very surprised if Lookman doesn't leave this January for about £8m and then along with the profit made from this summer's sales (giveaways) will probably just about fund this year for RD effectively without having to dip his hand into his pocket.
The real question for me though is what happens next summer when there's no more JBG, Cousins, Lookman etc to sell? No players of significant value and no decent income especially if we fail to go up this year. There's only so much money Konsa, Fox and Holmes could fetch in and it certainly won't fund another season's £12m loss.
I personally think RD is just digging in now as he won't want to be seen to be selling up at a loss. This means selling on the club for either the same as he paid with his web of debt entangled upon the club probably for about £20m? Or selling the club with all debt paid off (probably about £40m?). I think @The_President has it right above if we don't go up to expect another Belgian consortium in charge at some point though I do think RD is banking on us going up to be able to attract buyers who would be willing to buy the club as detailed above.
While I respect those who have boycotted this is partly why i've never believed that the boycott would lead to RD selling up because the loss of income will just be covered by more lending to the club which is in RD's interest while his 3% racks up. That and I just don't think RD cares about seeing an empty Valley to make him sell up either. In fact an empty Valley surely plays into his hands of having to cover more losses with more debt loaded onto the club and is probably why he stays away from matches to avoid building any emotional connection to the club to cloud his plan.
I don't honestly know what the answer is but I just don't see him selling up yet.
...So does it really matter? Not if you do not have any ambition. Not if ultimately you only came for the beer. Does it really matter if the stadium is 2/3rds empty? Not if ultimately you only came for the beer. Does it really matter if the crowd sits in silence as the players struggle to perform? Not if ultimately you only came for the beer. Does it matter thousands have walked away? Not if ultimately you only came for the beer...
Any strategy that is based on making money on sales around an inferior product is doomed to failure. That includes beer and the football product on the pitch. A non committed customer may not care much if the team loses but the quality of the product on offer is unlikely to get them to turn up in any sufficient quantity.
Football is probably the only area where you can get away with selling an inferior product, and the customers will keep on buying it. And where else can you get away with insulting the customers and they still accept it and come back for more? Or you persistently lie to your customers and they still offer you their hard-earned cash even though they know you are lying? Where else?
RD is a money man but also thinks he's a visionary. If he is pumping 12m into the club a year, which I doubt, alhough piling on debt at 3% interest looks good on his spreadsheet, doesn't it completely defeat his objective of a self sufficient club funded by player sales etc? Or am I missing something? Isn't that an admittance his way has failed?
RD is a money man but also thinks he's a visionary. If he is pumping 12m into the club a year, which I doubt, alhough piling on debt at 3% interest looks good on his spreadsheet, doesn't it completely defeat his objective of a self sufficient club funded by player sales etc? Or am I missing something? Isn't that an admittance his way has failed?
I can't see how the figure is £12 million per year. That seems like a huge outlay. What have they been spending the money on ? A ticketing system, a lick of paint doesn't account for that and Katy's reputation management surely is not expensive (although Katy's reputation management bill is likely to be quite high). I thought operating losses were about 6 million per year ? There has also been player sales and surely this would balance some of the operating losses ? (Apologies if this has been covered higher up in the thread).
RD is a money man but also thinks he's a visionary. If he is pumping 12m into the club a year, which I doubt, alhough piling on debt at 3% interest looks good on his spreadsheet, doesn't it completely defeat his objective of a self sufficient club funded by player sales etc? Or am I missing something? Isn't that an admittance his way has failed?
I can't see how the figure is £12 million per year. That seems like a huge outlay. What have they been spending the money on ? A ticketing system, a lick of paint doesn't account for that and Katy's reputation management surely is not expensive (although Katy's reputation management bill is likely to be quite high). I thought operating losses were about 6 million per year ? There has also been player sales and surely this would balance some of the operating losses ? (Apologies if this has been covered higher up in the thread).
I believe £12m a year is based on Chris Parkes reported comments on Saturday that RD is pumping in £1m a month.
£6m a year losses was probably based on the club being in The Championship. Just speculating but @Airman Brown will probably know.
Thanks. 12 million a year seems like a massive outlay for very little success. I still can't fathom what they are spending / wasting the money on, if it is £12 million.
Comments
I had a serious illness last year rather out of the blue (now recovered hopefully). Go and enjoy each others company whilst you can as you never know what the future holds.
Going Oxford on saturday, new ground about as exciting as it gets and the moment.
Most people it seems are there physically but i expect even more are wavering. Everyone has their limit.
Are we entering the corridor of uncertainty
Why is it a short term solution? Why is it a long term gain for Roland? Why will all debt be repaid?
I think CARD's message was more effective when the ground had fewer empty seats and many more jeering and booing the owners etc and showing how upset our supporters and fans were.
Thus far it's been more about the stubborn old fool's pride than economic sense, or he'd have binned Pinocchio ages ago, but he surely can't let it go on like this for long.
If Roly is worth £600m or whatever, £12m a year is still a loss he won't want to take indefinitely.
Let's hope you're right (and hopefully that I am wrong) and Roland's (Starprix) losses are non recoverable and they aren't ever owed back from CA Plc.
I still thought the protests felt more effective than the boycott feels.
I'd be lying if I said I was a true boycotter, I only average 5-10 games a season split between home and away.
At some stage RD will decide that its time to dispose of us - he's had his 'fun'. Now, at that stage, there clearly isn't going to be anyone prepared to effectively pay for his and Meire's past mistakes and give him the full amount of what he wants.
Therefore , the only way out for RD and KM to save face is to dispose of us in a way that portrays that he has got his money back , and that his plan 'works' - now , the only way he is going to be able to do that is to 'sell' to a friend/business partner who will be rewarded in other ways/financial avenues to take the hit- inthe same way as when he sold Standard Liege.
Therefore, it is my belief, that once he does sell, there will be another Belgian consortium who will buy the Club, however, RD will be funding it in some way via a accounting back-door method in Belgium- and they will effectively just be his puppets until such time as the club is fully disposed of.
Though the beer analogy is a bit repeated in Grapevines post. I think Grapevine is talking about the Meire version of a non committed customer. I am not sure Grapevine is really talking about the beer which as you point out is not very good and the setting is not very good either. It is pretty clear that Grapevine49 does not drink a lot of beer on the concourse. I think you are talking about the same thing.
Any strategy that is based on making money on sales around an inferior product is doomed to failure. That includes beer and the football product on the pitch. A non committed customer may not care much if the team loses but the quality of the product on offer is unlikely to get them to turn up in any sufficient quantity.
I would be very surprised if Lookman doesn't leave this January for about £8m and then along with the profit made from this summer's sales (giveaways) will probably just about fund this year for RD effectively without having to dip his hand into his pocket.
The real question for me though is what happens next summer when there's no more JBG, Cousins, Lookman etc to sell? No players of significant value and no decent income especially if we fail to go up this year. There's only so much money Konsa, Fox and Holmes could fetch in and it certainly won't fund another season's £12m loss.
I personally think RD is just digging in now as he won't want to be seen to be selling up at a loss. This means selling on the club for either the same as he paid with his web of debt entangled upon the club probably for about £20m? Or selling the club with all debt paid off (probably about £40m?). I think @The_President has it right above if we don't go up to expect another Belgian consortium in charge at some point though I do think RD is banking on us going up to be able to attract buyers who would be willing to buy the club as detailed above.
While I respect those who have boycotted this is partly why i've never believed that the boycott would lead to RD selling up because the loss of income will just be covered by more lending to the club which is in RD's interest while his 3% racks up. That and I just don't think RD cares about seeing an empty Valley to make him sell up either. In fact an empty Valley surely plays into his hands of having to cover more losses with more debt loaded onto the club and is probably why he stays away from matches to avoid building any emotional connection to the club to cloud his plan.
I don't honestly know what the answer is but I just don't see him selling up yet.
£6m a year losses was probably based on the club being in The Championship. Just speculating but @Airman Brown will probably know.