having a billionaire owner hasn't helped us so far, I want an owner who knows the business and has enough money to help but not so much that money isn't an object, who respects our history and wants to work with the fans.
Imo the biggest problem, at the moment, is the total break down in relationship between the owner and the fans, it could have been so, so different. It is now completely beyond repair.
If he gave the club away tomorrow the new owner would have to cover the trading loss until the end of the season, about £6 million. That's a lot of money to throw away. If a new owner didn't invest in January, or even sold players to reduce that cost, I can't imagine many people would be happy.
If we end up with owner who can't or won't significantly subsidies the club we will end up like Scunthorpe or Doncaster , mainly league 1 football with the occasional adventure into the championship or even league 2. How many league 1 stalwarts have a cat 2 academy and an u23 team? In fact how many own their own training ground?
The club is to big to break even in league 1, the "off the pitch" running costs are far to high. I am sure lots of people would be happy to be run like Accrington Stanley or Fleetwood, having beers with the owner after the game, but you would have to accept its league 1 football and the all that comes with it. Those that still go may enjoy it but there will thousands who never return.
Football has been ruined by the influx of TV, and owners, money. What was true in the 90s is no longer true now. You will continue to have the occasional "perfect storm", Huddersfield are having theirs now, we had ours in the late 90s. I can't last for ever and when it goes wrong, it goes wrong fast.
Unfortunately we need a considerably wealthy owner who is prepared to splash a lot of cash. Else it's perpetual decline, with out external funding we could still go down this season.
having a billionaire owner hasn't helped us so far, I want an owner who knows the business and has enough money to help but not so much that money isn't an object, who respects our history and wants to work with the fans.
Don't we all - if you find one please tell Roland.
Could it have been avoided with this owner? Not sure I agree, and we were able to look at his track record, which wasn't great was it.
He could have avoided it if he wanted to, up until the appointment of Fraye he could have done.
Also the club could perhaps break even with an enlightened owner and fan collaboration filling the ground.
We couldn't fill the ground every week in the premier league. Target 10 thousand took years, in the championship. Every year we stagnant the harder it will get.
I do agree a new owner isn't necessarily going to be better than the current one, not going to stop me wishing for a decent owner..
Unfortunately I find it very unlikely that we will found an owner that is both wealthy enough and decent enough to please everyone.
I was unable to log on here earlier and payed a visit to another forum. Being said there that the Mysterious 5th interested party have made their move. If I’m reading it correctly it kind of hints at Arabs and Qatar in particular. Racing connection.
Ive heard the rumour, from a reliable source that - Roland in his wisdom, and after telling Jim White how much better he could of been, at communicating and interacting with the fans more, has now made a Christmas concession, he has upped the price to £50 million, to cover the seasonal festivities, allowing 1 bulb to be used on the Christmas tree lights, one crisp per desk, and is replacing the Fans sofa with an Electric Chair, with a pay as you go meter.
Could it have been avoided with this owner? Not sure I agree, and we were able to look at his track record, which wasn't great was it. Also the club could perhaps break even with an enlightened owner and fan collaboration filling the ground.
I do agree a new owner isn't necessarily going to be better than the current one, not going to stop me wishing for a decent owner..
How would you close a 12 million plus operating loss by filling the ground? You would need an average net ticket yield of about £30 per ticket, at a rough calculation - a minimum average season ticket price (including all concessions) of £800 each. So let’s say £1200 each in the east and west for adults and £400 for U11s in all areas.
Let’s not take the mick out of the financial calculations of @razil After all it’s nearly Christmas, when he’ll be having a tantrum if nobody pays him to attend their ruddy Christmas lunch...
We’d be a lot closer with a fuller ground. Aren’t current losses £6m per year?
No, they are twice that. Of course it would be better to have more revenue but no realistic increase in gates will make a meaningful change.
Obviously Duchatelet’s pitiful management is a factor in that - losses have ballooned on his watch because of silly decisions - but, for example, a 4,000 increase in average attendances at current prices might yield about £1.5m a year at best - probably less.
hmm I must be getting confused then because LdT said monthly losses were £0.5m at I think two recent FFs now, and its not like we've earned £6m in player sales and sell on fees, although we may have reduced the wage bill a fair bit.
Referring to the point above, I would argue with enlightened ownership which could involve a number of measures including fan engagement, possibly part ownership, established some years back we wouldn't have the gates we have today. The evidence for that is the gates last time we were in League 1 under ownership that was far from radical.
I take the point that it isn't a magic wand we can suddenly wave but I do think under a different ownership model we could bring crowds back to the Valley incrementally over time, assuming its not too late.
hmm I must be getting confused then because LdT said monthly losses were £0.5m at I think two recent FFs now, and its not like we've earned £6m in player sales and sell on fees, although we may have reduced the wage bill a fair bit.
Referring to the point above, I would argue with enlightened ownership which could involve a number of measures including fan engagement, possibly part ownership, established some years back we wouldn't have the gates we have today. The evidence for that is the gates last time we were in League 1 which wasn't even that radical.
I take the point that it isn't a magic wand we can suddenly wave but I do think under a different ownership model we could bring crowds back to the Valley incrementally over time, assuming its not too late.
Is anyone seriously still believing a word this bloke says? If so, wake up and smell the coffee guys.
hmm I must be getting confused then because LdT said monthly losses were £0.5m at I think two recent FFs now, and its not like we've earned £6m in player sales and sell on fees, although we may have reduced the wage bill a fair bit.
Referring to the point above, I would argue with enlightened ownership which could involve a number of measures including fan engagement, possibly part ownership, established some years back we wouldn't have the gates we have today. The evidence for that is the gates last time we were in League 1 which wasn't even that radical.
I take the point that it isn't a magic wand we can suddenly wave but I do think under a different ownership model we could bring crowds back to the Valley incrementally over time, assuming its not too late.
Is anyone seriously still believing a word this bloke says? If so, wake up and smell the coffee guys.
Mmmmmmmm Coffee smells good but LDT smells better 😸
LdT is not a credible source, he is the mouthpiece for a serial liar.
The ideas that an enlightened ownership that encouraged fan engagement have a lot of merit and would have a major positive impact on the fortunes of the club but lets be realistic, whilst LdT is the only vehicle for regular communication from the ownership, its still unreliable, openly deceptive and wholly unlinked to the current reality of Charlton Athletic.
I think its a mistake to think the FF believe everything they are told. I've been quite impressed with the general discerning nature of the group, not just the excellent Mr Wallis. I will though seek a clarification on the numbers.
I think its a mistake to think the FF believe everything they are told. I've been quite impressed with the general discerning nature of the group, not just the excellent Mr Wallis. I will though seek a clarification on the numbers.
We don’t have the accounts for 2017/18 but based on the detail disclosed by Duchatelet the operating loss must have been circa £13m (£14.3m in 16/17). It is inconceivable that £6/£7m of costs have fallen out of the budget for 18/19 (given football salary costs are the biggest item) while revenue is likely to have fallen further.
It is true that some of the bottom line loss does not need to be funded, e.g. interest is just added to the debt so he is not putting that money in, but the funding requirement is unlikely to average as little as £0.5m a month over the full year.
However the fundamental issue with your “fill the ground” argument is that the revenue is much lower than you assume. Only about 55% of paid ticket sales go to adults - and about a third of season ticket sales are at the £200 price point, which yields £7.25 a game from adults after VAT.
So as much as people might look at some match tickets costing £28, the average yield per ticket is unlikely to be much more than £12/£13. Allowing a very generous £2 per head margin on all ancillary sales, a benchmark total benefit per fan would be £15. The total possible revenue from 23,700 home spectators (assuming a pro rata increase in season-ticket holders) is therefore about £8m against current operating costs of circa £20m (£21.1m in 16/17).
There is other revenue but it amounted to £4.4m in 16/17, of which just £1.2m was commercial. Much of the rest is central payments and academy grant.
I think its a mistake to think the FF believe everything they are told. I've been quite impressed with the general discerning nature of the group, not just the excellent Mr Wallis. I will though seek a clarification on the numbers.
I think its a mistake to think the FF believe everything they are told. I've been quite impressed with the general discerning nature of the group, not just the excellent Mr Wallis. I will though seek a clarification on the numbers.
Then why bother quoting the bloke?
I’d rather let people make up their own minds than tell them what to think.
I think its a mistake to think the FF believe everything they are told. I've been quite impressed with the general discerning nature of the group, not just the excellent Mr Wallis. I will though seek a clarification on the numbers.
Then why bother quoting the bloke?
I’d rather let people make up their own minds than tell them what to think.
Comments
If he gave the club away tomorrow the new owner would have to cover the trading loss until the end of the season, about £6 million. That's a lot of money to throw away. If a new owner didn't invest in January, or even sold players to reduce that cost, I can't imagine many people would be happy.
If we end up with owner who can't or won't significantly subsidies the club we will end up like Scunthorpe or Doncaster , mainly league 1 football with the occasional adventure into the championship or even league 2. How many league 1 stalwarts have a cat 2 academy and an u23 team? In fact how many own their own training ground?
The club is to big to break even in league 1, the "off the pitch" running costs are far to high. I am sure lots of people would be happy to be run like Accrington Stanley or Fleetwood, having beers with the owner after the game, but you would have to accept its league 1 football and the all that comes with it. Those that still go may enjoy it but there will thousands who never return.
Football has been ruined by the influx of TV, and owners, money. What was true in the 90s is no longer true now. You will continue to have the occasional "perfect storm", Huddersfield are having theirs now, we had ours in the late 90s. I can't last for ever and when it goes wrong, it goes wrong fast.
Unfortunately we need a considerably wealthy owner who is prepared to splash a lot of cash. Else it's perpetual decline, with out external funding we could still go down this season.
Be careful what you wish for.
Also the club could perhaps break even with an enlightened owner and fan collaboration filling the ground.
I do agree a new owner isn't necessarily going to be better than the current one, not going to stop me wishing for a decent owner..
The figures have been gone over so many times.
If for a play of semi last year we have 14k max fans, where are you going to find the other 10k fans to "fill the ground"?
After all it’s nearly Christmas, when he’ll be having a tantrum if nobody pays him to attend their ruddy Christmas lunch...
Obviously Duchatelet’s pitiful management is a factor in that - losses have ballooned on his watch because of silly decisions - but, for example, a 4,000 increase in average attendances at current prices might yield about £1.5m a year at best - probably less.
Referring to the point above, I would argue with enlightened ownership which could involve a number of measures including fan engagement, possibly part ownership, established some years back we wouldn't have the gates we have today. The evidence for that is the gates last time we were in League 1 under ownership that was far from radical.
I take the point that it isn't a magic wand we can suddenly wave but I do think under a different ownership model we could bring crowds back to the Valley incrementally over time, assuming its not too late.
The ideas that an enlightened ownership that encouraged fan engagement have a lot of merit and would have a major positive impact on the fortunes of the club but lets be realistic, whilst LdT is the only vehicle for regular communication from the ownership, its still unreliable, openly deceptive and wholly unlinked to the current reality of Charlton Athletic.
It is true that some of the bottom line loss does not need to be funded, e.g. interest is just added to the debt so he is not putting that money in, but the funding requirement is unlikely to average as little as £0.5m a month over the full year.
However the fundamental issue with your “fill the ground” argument is that the revenue is much lower than you assume. Only about 55% of paid ticket sales go to adults - and about a third of season ticket sales are at the £200 price point, which yields £7.25 a game from adults after VAT.
So as much as people might look at some match tickets costing £28, the average yield per ticket is unlikely to be much more than £12/£13. Allowing a very generous £2 per head margin on all ancillary sales, a benchmark total benefit per fan would be £15. The total possible revenue from 23,700 home spectators (assuming a pro rata increase in season-ticket holders) is therefore about £8m against current operating costs of circa £20m (£21.1m in 16/17).
There is other revenue but it amounted to £4.4m in 16/17, of which just £1.2m was commercial. Much of the rest is central payments and academy grant.