I'd argue that the protests/boycotts increased the losses significantly, despite that silly cow demonstrating her commmercial idiocy by stating that ticket revenues were not important because they only amounted to 35% of turnover, and thereby accelerated the need to find a buyer.
The main contributor though is shockingly bad spending - overpaying players, paying them off because they aren’t suitable and even spending on things that are nothing to do with the business.
True but not unique to RD/KM. I'm sure we can point to examples from previous owners too...Jimmy Ffloyd-Haslebank as a player cost that now seems high, Alan Pardew and Ian Dowie and their acquisitions etc.
Not positive by any stretch for RD only thing it does show us that he did put money in albeit unwisely.
Good news remains he wants out.
Not unique, but there’s a question of proportionality - the club is now spending three times what it earns (or was in 2017).
Agreed. So RD is not guilty of profiteering / lack of investment as some seem to intimate but very guilty of poor judgement and oversight.
Let's hope our new owners are more interested in the football outcomes of their spending.
Still baffles me why any successful business person chooses to invest in football. It's only ever for ego/status in today's world unless there is genuine football interest at heart.
Way to go Napa, transatlantic remote ramblings that instantly piss off a sizable proportion of loyal Addicks who have spent time, energy and effort trying to drive change!
Social awareness ap not available stateside yet?
Henry is correct, it does not "prove" the point, but it is my opinion. And I think it is correct, which is why I have it.
I am stating that finances are the top reason he is selling. Saying such does not mean protests had no effect. Nor does it mean I am disparaging everyone. Those who make that leap in logic of my intent are on their own.
Protests peaked and were already in decline before he decided to sell. If protests were the main cause, then why did he sell after they were far less numerous and less intense? The drop in attendance is actually not much worse for CAFC as many other clubs that have dropped two divisions out of the PL after nearly a decade.
In the majority of cases, the lowered season ticket sales are not (in my opinion) a protest decision by most (although clearly by many) but simply the fact that most people don't want to pay up to £575 per ticket to watch mediocre League One football year after year. Also, since the last time CAFC was in the PL, people have many other options for entertainment and at much lower cost and as the older fans move on, less and less younger people are finding attending a lower league football match to be their highest desire.
If people wish to take this opinion as an insult to their efforts, that's their decision. I am not taking that on. I don't mean it as such. It's just the way I see the situation in context of the totality of information at hand.
In my opinion, RD's decision is primarily financial. He will get out of the club breaking even and possibly even with a small net profit despite doing dreadfully as owner and he has very little leeway left to keep the losses from adding up down the line, so he is selling and getting out while he can.
It's just my opinion and obviously it may or may not be correct.
I'd argue that the protests/boycotts increased the losses significantly, despite that silly cow demonstrating her commmercial idiocy by stating that ticket revenues were not important because they only amounted to 35% of turnover, and thereby accelerated the need to find a buyer.
The main contributor though is shockingly bad spending - overpaying players, paying them off because they aren’t suitable and even spending on things that are nothing to do with the business.
True but not unique to RD/KM. I'm sure we can point to examples from previous owners too...Jimmy Ffloyd-Haslebank as a player cost that now seems high, Alan Pardew and Ian Dowie and their acquisitions etc.
Not positive by any stretch for RD only thing it does show us that he did put money in albeit unwisely.
Good news remains he wants out.
Not unique, but there’s a question of proportionality - the club is now spending three times what it earns (or was in 2017).
Agreed. So RD is not guilty of profiteering / lack of investment as some seem to intimate but very guilty of poor judgement and oversight.
Let's hope our new owners are more interested in the football outcomes of their spending.
Still baffles me why any successful business person chooses to invest in football. It's only ever for ego/status in today's world unless there is genuine football interest at heart.
I think it comes down to poor governance and shocking management, perhaps not untypical of companies run by idiosyncratic despots. In a normal business you’d have a board scrutinising costs and relating them to outcomes. A lot of what RD does is akin to one bloke following the ball around the pitch wherever it goes.
Way to go Napa, transatlantic remote ramblings that instantly piss off a sizable proportion of loyal Addicks who have spent time, energy and effort trying to drive change!
Social awareness ap not available stateside yet?
Henry is correct, it does not "prove" the point, but it is my opinion. And I think it is correct, which is why I have it.
I am stating that finances are the top reason he is selling. Saying such does not mean protests had no effect. Nor does it mean I am disparaging them. Unless having an opinion not in goose step with the most fanatical here counts automatically as some affront to morality. Those who make that leap in logic of my intent are on their own.
Protests peaked and were already in decline before he decided to sell. If protests were the main cause, then why did he sell after they were far less numerous and less intense? The drop in attendance is actually not much different for CAFC as other clubs that have dropped two divisions out of the PL after nearly a decade.
In the majority of cases, the lowered season ticket sales are not a protest decision by most (although clearly by many) but simply the fact that most people don't want to pay up to £575 per ticket to watch mediocre League One football year after year. Also, since the last time CAFC was in the PL, people have many other options for entertainment and at much lower cost.
If people wish to take this opinion as an insult to their efforts, that's their decision. I am not taking that on. I don't mean it as such. It's just the way I see the situation in context of the totality of information at hand.
In my opinion, RD's decision is primarily financial. He will get out of the club breaking even and possibly even with a small net profit despite doing dreadfully as owner and he has very little leeway left to keep the losses from adding up down the line, so he is selling and getting out while he can.
It’s not a true or false argument, but you don’t account for the much higher ST sales in L1 2009-11 - and in fact price is not a significant factor in the fall 2016 & 2017. The club’s lack of credibility under RD is - whether you judge that protest or just lack of trust.
AB, you may well be right. At the same time, a long time has passed from 2011. Seven years. Of awful football.
There are many fans of Liverpool and Arsenal that hate their owners. But if they are in the PL, they still come to matches. Or tourists do. Because the overall product on the field is still considered world class. No one can say that about League One.
But most clubs who are in lower leagues have severely declining attendances once they have been in it a few seasons. Much less a decade. I would love to look at other clubs and calculate their average attendance drops after missing out on the PL for 10 years. I bet it is not that different from ours. If so, then protests cannot logically be the reason for the majority of that lower attendances.
AB, you may well be right. At the same time, a long time has passed from 2011. Seven years. Of awful football.
There are many fans of Liverpool and Arsenal that hate their owners. But if they are in the PL, they still come to matches. Or tourists do. Because the overall product on the field is still considered world class. No one can say that about League One.
But most clubs who are in lower leagues have severely declining attendances once they have been in it a few seasons. Much less a decade. I would love to look at other clubs and calculate their average attendance drops after missing out on the PL for 10 years. I bet it is not that different from ours. If so, then protests cannot logically be the reason for the majority of that lower attendances.
Some truth in that, because the crowd in 2007-2009 was also higher than in 2012-2016. But I think It’s just another perspective on the collapse in the club’s credibility which has damaged support.
A tranche of people will watch the team in L1 if they believe the club is being run by competent people - but they have rightly concluded that RD, KM and their assorted appointees and other apologists are not competent, so have bailed out on that basis. Not all are protesting - many just worked out they were being asked to pay to watch a team that was doomed to fail and declined to bother.
It's pretty easy to protest when you're trudging around in a shyte league playing shyte football. The hardcore fans that would go hook or by crook but have stopped because of the owner is minimal in my opinion. For many, I suspect it's just a good excuse to not bother going.
It's pretty easy to protest when you're trudging around in a shyte league playing shyte football. The hardcore fans that would go hook or by crook but have stopped because of the owner is minimal in my opinion. For many, I suspect it's just a good excuse to not bother going.
Amounts to the same thing in the end. Most people who would have watched Charlton in the First Division at The Valley 1986-90 didn’t bother going to Selhurst Park because it was too much effort, not out of principled protest. But the outcome was still much smaller crowds than we would have got.
#CAFC sold players (Lookman etc) at a profit of £16.2 million in 2016/17, but only received £405,000 in cash. Could have sold on credit, but debtors are only £3.7 million. This begs the question ‘What has happened to the other £12 million’? pic.twitter.com/a43eoUlRFc
Parent company of #CAFC in Belgium charged over £1 million in interest during 2016/17. This was added to the amount already lent taking it to £56 million pic.twitter.com/6gzidoEKwx
I would have thought Lookman money would have turned up on CAFC accounts?
I assume it's in the profit for the year line in the cash flow statement (827k), which would have been a massive loss again without it. The sale of Lookman would gave been 100% profit seeing that we picked him up for nothing(ish)
This accounts basically prove that the reason RD is not really selling because of protests. It's because he can no longer cover losses with player sales. The gig is up. Someone else will now have to clean up the mess. The sale is purely a financial decision.
Well done the boycotters (the biggest sacrifice) and those who spend the minimum at the club . It’s not easy but every little bit not spent adds up to more losses for that piss taking twunt . Heroes one and all
Thank you oohaah, I sometimes feel if I am the only person who is genuinely boycotting when I read this site, especially on a match day however I know that is not the case.
It has not been easy, I have been to the Valley twice in two and a half seasons both times as a guest so no money from my pocket to RD's.
I would have been celebrating my 50th season as a supporter this year and part of that has been taken away from me.
I have concerns because the hype is being escalated and people are creeping back due to results whilst being blinkered that the real enemy still owns the club.
I will not be back until RD has sold and left the building and I know the identity of the new owner, however I fear for that at the moment because RD is sly and any sniff of Championship football next season may well persuade him to change his mind and stay on.
#CAFC sold players (Lookman etc) at a profit of £16.2 million in 2016/17, but only received £405,000 in cash. Could have sold on credit, but debtors are only £3.7 million. This begs the question ‘What has happened to the other £12 million’? pic.twitter.com/a43eoUlRFc
This accounts basically prove that the reason RD is not really selling because of protests. It's because he can no longer cover losses with player sales. The gig is up. Someone else will now have to clean up the mess. The sale is purely a financial decision.
Well done the boycotters (the biggest sacrifice) and those who spend the minimum at the club . It’s not easy but every little bit not spent adds up to more losses for that piss taking twunt . Heroes one and all
Thank you oohaah, I sometimes feel if I am the only person who is genuinely boycotting when I read this site, especially on a match day however I know that is not the case.
It has not been easy, I have been to the Valley twice in two and a half seasons both times as a guest so no money from my pocket to RD's.
I would have been celebrating my 50th season as a supporter this year and part of that has been taken away from me.
I have concerns because the hype is being escalated and people are creeping back due to results whilst being blinkered that the real enemy still owns the club.
I will not be back until RD has sold and left the building and I know the identity of the new owner, however I fear for that at the moment because RD is sly and any sniff of Championship football next season may well persuade him to change his mind and stay on.
Time will tell
#notapennymore
You're not alone chaps and there are hundreds more whatever anyone else may want to believe. In term of CL on match days, as a previous season ticket holder who rarely ever missed a home game, it always amazes me how many non-boycotters regularly miss home games for little or no reason.
The link to the 30/6/2017 accounts is on the first post (2nd link first doesn't work).
Tangible Assets are £42.347M ie broadly speaking The Valley & Sparrows Lane. I will try & copy in the important note 11 re the above.
I didn't understand it at the time & still don't.
It appears to say - Cost £18.943M Revalued 30/6/17 by directors £23.764M
Total £42.707M
Can an accountant on here please explain this, as it reads to me that they have added the cost of the land to the revaluation and double counted the value, which can't be correct ?
I haven't seen the accounts but the £23m will be the increase in value rather than the total value. This increase will need to go to a revaluation reserve and is not available to finance a dividend.
Basically bought for £18.943m, valued by directors at £42.707m so middle number is the difference (ie uplift in valuation since acquisition).
i assume they had advice to get to their number as not sure how RD or KM (think she was a director then) would have the requisite knowledge for what would be a very complicated valn. Also wonder on what basis it was valued and whether that number includes a load of hope value for change of use.
Basically bought for £18.943m, valued by directors at £42.707m so middle number is the difference (ie uplift in valuation since acquisition).
i assume they had advice to get to their number as not sure how RD or KM (think she was a director then) would have the requisite knowledge for what would be a very complicated valn. Also wonder on what basis it was valued and whether that number includes a load of hope value for change of use.
Thank-you. I feel this is extremely important if RD is now going to try and split the club from The Valley & Sparrows Lane.
So he paid nothing for the club in the first place if the land & buildings were costed at £18.943M.
He had them revalued upwards from £18.9M to £42.7M over a duration of 3.5 years.
I'm astounded that someone on here thinks it's a good idea for us to take the club off his hands for nothing, when he paid nothing for it and let him keep the land & buildings for which he paid £18.9M and now values at £42.7M.
Can anyone explain how The Valley & Sparrows Lane could have risen in value from £18.9M to £42.7M in 3.5 years ?
My only assumption can be that it was worth well over £30M when he purchased, which is why he didn't worry about due dilligence, as he assumed/knew the land was undervalued by at least £12M ?
So, is the increase in the value of the land & buildings equal to the money Roland has put in since owning the club minus any money received from outgoing transfers?
Comments
Let's hope our new owners are more interested in the football outcomes of their spending.
Still baffles me why any successful business person chooses to invest in football. It's only ever for ego/status in today's world unless there is genuine football interest at heart.
I am stating that finances are the top reason he is selling. Saying such does not mean protests had no effect. Nor does it mean I am disparaging everyone. Those who make that leap in logic of my intent are on their own.
Protests peaked and were already in decline before he decided to sell. If protests were the main cause, then why did he sell after they were far less numerous and less intense? The drop in attendance is actually not much worse for CAFC as many other clubs that have dropped two divisions out of the PL after nearly a decade.
In the majority of cases, the lowered season ticket sales are not (in my opinion) a protest decision by most (although clearly by many) but simply the fact that most people don't want to pay up to £575 per ticket to watch mediocre League One football year after year. Also, since the last time CAFC was in the PL, people have many other options for entertainment and at much lower cost and as the older fans move on, less and less younger people are finding attending a lower league football match to be their highest desire.
If people wish to take this opinion as an insult to their efforts, that's their decision. I am not taking that on. I don't mean it as such. It's just the way I see the situation in context of the totality of information at hand.
In my opinion, RD's decision is primarily financial. He will get out of the club breaking even and possibly even with a small net profit despite doing dreadfully as owner and he has very little leeway left to keep the losses from adding up down the line, so he is selling and getting out while he can.
It's just my opinion and obviously it may or may not be correct.
There are many fans of Liverpool and Arsenal that hate their owners. But if they are in the PL, they still come to matches. Or tourists do. Because the overall product on the field is still considered world class. No one can say that about League One.
But most clubs who are in lower leagues have severely declining attendances once they have been in it a few seasons. Much less a decade. I would love to look at other clubs and calculate their average attendance drops after missing out on the PL for 10 years. I bet it is not that different from ours. If so, then protests cannot logically be the reason for the majority of that lower attendances.
A tranche of people will watch the team in L1 if they believe the club is being run by competent people - but they have rightly concluded that RD, KM and their assorted appointees and other apologists are not competent, so have bailed out on that basis. Not all are protesting - many just worked out they were being asked to pay to watch a team that was doomed to fail and declined to bother.
It's pretty easy to protest when you're trudging around in a shyte league playing shyte football.
The hardcore fans that would go hook or by crook but have stopped because of the owner is minimal in my opinion.
For many, I suspect it's just a good excuse to not bother going.
It has not been easy, I have been to the Valley twice in two and a half seasons both times as a guest so no money from my pocket to RD's.
I would have been celebrating my 50th season as a supporter this year and part of that has been taken away from me.
I have concerns because the hype is being escalated and people are creeping back due to results whilst being blinkered that the real enemy still owns the club.
I will not be back until RD has sold and left the building and I know the identity of the new owner, however I fear for that at the moment because RD is sly and any sniff of Championship football next season may well persuade him to change his mind and stay on.
Time will tell
#notapennymore
Training ground trenches don't buy themselves.
Tangible Assets are £42.347M ie broadly speaking The Valley & Sparrows Lane.
I will try & copy in the important note 11 re the above.
I didn't understand it at the time & still don't.
It appears to say - Cost £18.943M
Revalued 30/6/17 by directors £23.764M
Total £42.707M
Can an accountant on here please explain this, as it reads to me that they have added the cost of the land to the revaluation and double counted the value, which can't be correct ?
This increase will need to go to a revaluation reserve and is not available to finance a dividend.
i assume they had advice to get to their number as not sure how RD or KM (think she was a director then) would have the requisite knowledge for what would be a very complicated valn. Also wonder on what basis it was valued and whether that number includes a load of hope value for change of use.
So he paid nothing for the club in the first place if the land & buildings were costed at £18.943M.
He had them revalued upwards from £18.9M to £42.7M over a duration of 3.5 years.
I'm astounded that someone on here thinks it's a good idea for us to take the club off his hands for nothing, when he paid nothing for it and let him keep the land & buildings for which he paid £18.9M and now values at £42.7M.
Can anyone explain how The Valley & Sparrows Lane could have risen in value from £18.9M to £42.7M in 3.5 years ?
My only assumption can be that it was worth well over £30M when he purchased, which is why he didn't worry about due dilligence, as he assumed/knew the land was undervalued by at least £12M ?
Feel free to correct me anyone, if I'm wrong.
Administration costs:
White spirit (windows) €1.99
Travel exps to SE7 £0.00
Non current assets
Land & Buildings: £70,000,000.00
(Very) Current assets: Joe Aribo
Disposal of assets (Jan-19): “undisclosed”
Current liabilities: you lot