So we're in a position where our owner is asking the EFL to buy him out!! When i first saw this earlier this evening I thought it was a joke, spoof or a hack onto the official club website, but no it was for real. It must now be obvious to everybody the man is beyond deluded, he is asking an organisation that caters for 71 other clubs to buy 1 of their competitors and run it, and rent the ground if they cant buy it....unbelievable! However this rant, in my eyes is serious. The question is what can be done to finally get him to drop his price before he runs the club into the ground? He wants out, so any thoughts of him spending any money on player contracts, getting new players in, offering contracts to LB and JJ is pie in the sky. So where could that leave us in the summer? 8 or 9 contracted players, youngsters and little or no management. Time is running out, perhaps all fan forums can unite and look for common ground in how to save CAFC from what must now be obvious to everyone - an owner, who by his own admission, has little time (2%) for the club, and by his own admission has and never has had any ambition for the club, and once again, by his own admission, should NOT have been allowed to buy the club by the EFL. The issue I have on top of all of the above, is he has been banging on through LDT about Aussies buying the club, only to say today that he won't sell to foreign owners, unless I'm mistaken aren't Aussies foreign owners? This man needs to be removed from the ownership of this great club, his experiment has failed, its time he moved on, its time he dropped his price and let a new beginning dawn. As a normally peaceful 64 year old - Its time for constructive action!!
What do you mean by constructive......the mind boggles!
Interesting musings, @Grapevine49, which hits several nails on the head.
I can certainly see that if the freehold assets were offered to sale to the supporters, there would be interest of the type you outline - but of course, that is not the major problem, is it?
The real question is who might take over responsibility for the playing side of the club, and why, because we can all see its potential to be a financial black hole.
Looking round the leagues there are still a few clubs, like Accrington, where a main motivation of the owner appears to be philanthropic - to do something for the good of the local community. There is probably still scope for this in one-club towns which do not have the competing attraction of multiple Premier league clubs nearby. It seems doubtful to me that Charlton could survive on that basis.
Two other motivations appear to be either a conspicuous display of wealth "look at me; I'm so wealthy I can afford to bankroll a football club", or for business reasons, using the club as an advertising vehicle and for large scale corporate hospitality. There are then less laudable motivations such as money laundering, tax avoidance, attempts to gain citizenship, all of which have been speculated on in the press at different times.
Of course there would also be the hope that the club would achieve promotion to the Premier, and do sufficiently well there to remain at that level and become self-financing - but nobody sane could rely on that.
So... we all know the EFL cannot fall in with Roland's demand - but what alternatives are there waiting in the wings? And is there anything we as fans can do to mitigate the harm Roland has done and continues to do?
Although Roland has never recognised it, we are potentially a large asset to the business, and not only as buyers of tickets and merchandise. Is there an effective way to publicise the fans as more than cash-cows who have inventive minds when it comes to protesting?
If £2.5k would steer us out of this mess I will find the money. There are many here who would like to be able to do that too, but don't have the resources, their passion for the club is the same as mine however, it isn't measured by money. But for me, like Grapevine, I would contribute with no expectation of return, but the string I would attach would be that it has to be a way out of this nightmare.
One issue I see with the fans owning the ground and training ground is what happens if the club doesn't pay the rent or carry out the required maintenance?
Will we evict the club?
We would be hostages to the owners and they would know that.
Even a "friendly" separation of club and ground is, IMHO, a bad idea although still better than Duchatelet.
The stated purpose of Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust is to "protect, preserve and promote CAFC for this and future generations", and we haven't forgotten that. I've shared @Grapevine's post with Trust board colleagues as it is highly relevant to things we are looking into. Equally we fully appreciate that any such fundraising/ pledging and the purpose is not simple/ straightforward.
One issue I see with the fans owning the ground and training ground is what happens if the club doesn't pay the rent or carry out the required maintenance?
Will we evict the club?
We would be hostages to the owners and they would know that.
Even a "friendly" separation of club and ground is, IMHO, a bad idea although still better than Duchatelet.
The club and the ground/training ground MUST never be split under no circumstances !!
Why can’t Roland be sectioned under the mental health act surely there are 2 doctors who support Charlton who could sign the section order
The problem is that he doesn't spend any time here and his stupidity isn't sectionable. Also a doctor who did this on the basis of the football team they support would be struck off. Apart from that well done.
In principle I would follow @Grapevine49 initiative and put it in £2.5k. That's what I put in when we were offered shares in CAFC in the 90s and this idea would be at least much safer for people's valuable savings.
We have to think through the various issues though, and I think the Trust will be able to take this forward and address those issues, some of which have already been aired here. Another is that the pool of potential buyers would narrow because there would not be the possibility to borrow against the tangible assets. That's not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but the vast majority of English clubs do have that possibility.
Yep me too...for the 2 n half...become's me littleun' s inheritance,bit of a legacy or if sold back to someone who really cares about our club,a little profit maybe...😉,win all round me thinks...
His argument is amazing... I got us relegated and no one will buy us.
NOT because my price is at or above Championship levels but because no one wants to deal with the fans. The fact he uses the Trump term "fake news" is telling.
Has the EFL responded yet, as they said they would? That will be hilarious.
Grapevines excellent post, page 15, deserves its own thread in my opinion. Anyone care to oblige? (Have tried on my iPad but can’t get the hang of copying and pasting)
Grapevines excellent post, page 15, deserves its own thread in my opinion. Anyone care to oblige? (Have tried on my iPad but can’t get the hang of copying and pasting)
I am all for "brainstorming" new ideas. In such exercises it is true quite literally nothing is deemed too "stupid".
It is a "behind closed door" exercise designed to remove the personal filters most people have before they release such random thinking into the public domain.
It is a process which then validates and revalidates any suggestion against the reality of considered opinion.
I find it troubling our beneficial owner appears to neither possess such personal or organisational filters.
We have another Laurel & Hardy moment. It is yet another fine mess.
I had drafted probably the longest post in my time on Charlton Life but in all honesty I tire of commenting on probably the most depressing examples of borderline corporate misfeasance I have ever witnessed.
The joke is becoming very old indeed. Just how many more times do we have to go through this farce.
Throughout the entire shambolic experience of the past 5yrs there is one very simple common factor which shines through; Indeed the beneficial owner proudly proclaims it at almost every opportunity. In what realm of fantasy does anyone think you can succeed at anything in making just a 2% commitment to overseeing a business working in a dynamic, fiercely competitive global billion pound industry.
It really is that simple. Such a grotesque failure of a personal & corporate duty of care directly correlates to the lack of industry & market knowledge, the absence of appropriate corporate oversight, totally inappropriate executive & operational appointments, the resultant abject operational and financial performance and now the increasing bizarre outbursts.
The latest outburst has at least saved you from ploughing through my detailed speculation on why we have travelled the journey we have over the past 12-18 months.
I had little to add to "the Vandalism" debate though M.Duchatelet's, once again, immature response betrays the very nature of his thinking and judgements which it seems may have prompted such acts of frustration.
In principle I am not in favour of such action. In truth graffiti, in such circumstances, ultimately defines an inability to influence the decisions which impact our lives. It is meant to attract attention, and often to be offensive. RD, in this instance, is the victim.
In itself it is normally counter productive but whether designed to provoke a response or not it seems we can rely on the beneficial owner to rise to the challenge.
Overall however the consensus has to be he is a victim of his own making.
In what alternative universe does anybody choose to step into English football with the intent to use a pan European club network and not understand it is a Global Industry, with global owners intent on investing considerable sums in, employing established and experienced professionals fully committed to, fully participating in a global brand.
In the real world It displayed an appalling and embarrassing level of due diligence, understanding and neglect.
In the real world I regret to inform M. Duchatelet and the club have, I suggest, acted in direct breach of EFL regulations.
No Club, either by itself, its servants or agents, shall
by any means whatsoever unfairly criticise, disparage, belittle or discredit
any other Club or The League or in either case any of its directors, officers,
employees or agents.
The club statement* is thus reckless, unprofessional, inaccurate and unhelpful in every way imaginable.
It embodies all we have seen since Jan 2014. It is about the interests of one man and one man alone.
I propose not to waste any more than 2% of my time on the individual concerned.
* Attaching a personal profile to such a corporate statement is beyond extraordinary. Any communications professional involved should seriously consider their position.
My interest is the club, its staff, its clubhouse management, its players and all those involved in the academy.
If the beneficial owner is serious in his intent to depart then he for once in his life needs to communicate with clarity and certainty. Just simply state your price to walk away and your rationale for such price. Everything else is irrelevant.
The confusing utterances on Talksport suggest it is wrapped around the clubs freehold properties. We need to know the mans understanding of what he thinks he bought and the realistic valuations of the related assets.
If based on London land prices let us see 3 independent professional valuations based on the current allowed usage of the land and the facilities thereon. Despite Idle Hans excellent assessment elsewhere the last published accounts do not provide the level of clarity needed.
Any speculative value based on normal commercial stadium use or land development has to be turned aside.
The reality is it is not a question of valuation but the degree to which this vendor will "hold hostage" the club assets to secure the greatest recovery of debt.
M. Duchatelet there is no originality of thought here. South London has danced through the curse of too many who have sought to use & abuse the real estate of our football clubs in their own interest, from Hammam at Wimbledon, Noades at Crystal Palace, even concerns with the environs at Millwall and of course our own Messrs Cash, Slater and Jiminez.
I had and have no interest in any of them as individuals, their nationality, their gender, their personal circumstances or personality traits beyond how they perform(ed) in "serving the organisation(s)" they represent(ed).
We all know there are times in ones life when we recognise the organisations we associate with no longer reflect our personal or professional values. Today I quite simply have had enough of the rambling, self obsessed, self serving, miserable nonsense which continues to emanate from this regime.
It is time for one of us to go.
I am mindful just over 25 years ago small numbers, then hundreds and ultimately thousands fought against all the odds to restore the club to its natural home. They did not due so to assuage the losses of a self important delusional owner who by his actions and words clearly has more money than common sense.
As then I am sure none of us have an appetite for "tilting at windmills" but is there a genuine appetite across the fan base to explore facilitating and driving change today. In very different times and very different circumstances is there a real appetite for the fight?
In my brainstorming exercise
In recognition of over 60 years of the collective experience in following the club I would be prepared to pledge a minimum of £2500 toward securing clear and free and unencumbered title to the land at The Valley and Sparrows Lane to ensure its continued use by Charlton Athletic Football Club in perpetuity.
It would be a "not for profit" investment.
I would have no interest in running a football club.
I would have every interest in joining with others to secure the facilities, to offer secure tenure to those interested in running our football club, at entirely their own financial risk, while meeting the full operational, maintenance and development costs associated with such facilities.
Such a "franchisee" would have no automatic fall back on any other use of such secure tenure or its use as collateral in securing any financial services.
I am just one small voice offering to take one small step forward. 6000 such single or multiple steps will produce £15mn*.
I face a simple choice do I step forward or do I step away.
Grapevine49
*Such a figure in no way asserts any valuation of the freehold assets of the club.
What's the matter, @Grapevine49, cat got your tongue?
Thinking about it, is there any reason why we should not commission our own valuation of the freehold assets? One does not have to own property to have it valued.
(basking in the warm glow of a Grapevine citation)
Comments
I’d be happy to join you.
Interesting musings, @Grapevine49, which hits several nails on the head.
I can certainly see that if the freehold assets were offered to sale to the supporters, there would be interest of the type you outline - but of course, that is not the major problem, is it?
The real question is who might take over responsibility for the playing side of the club, and why, because we can all see its potential to be a financial black hole.
Looking round the leagues there are still a few clubs, like Accrington, where a main motivation of the owner appears to be philanthropic - to do something for the good of the local community. There is probably still scope for this in one-club towns which do not have the competing attraction of multiple Premier league clubs nearby. It seems doubtful to me that Charlton could survive on that basis.
Two other motivations appear to be either a conspicuous display of wealth "look at me; I'm so wealthy I can afford to bankroll a football club", or for business reasons, using the club as an advertising vehicle and for large scale corporate hospitality. There are then less laudable motivations such as money laundering, tax avoidance, attempts to gain citizenship, all of which have been speculated on in the press at different times.
Of course there would also be the hope that the club would achieve promotion to the Premier, and do sufficiently well there to remain at that level and become self-financing - but nobody sane could rely on that.
So... we all know the EFL cannot fall in with Roland's demand - but what alternatives are there waiting in the wings? And is there anything we as fans can do to mitigate the harm Roland has done and continues to do?
Although Roland has never recognised it, we are potentially a large asset to the business, and not only as buyers of tickets and merchandise. Is there an effective way to publicise the fans as more than cash-cows who have inventive minds when it comes to protesting?
There are many here who would like to be able to do that too, but don't have the resources, their passion for the club is the same as mine however, it isn't measured by money.
But for me, like Grapevine, I would contribute with no expectation of return, but the string I would attach would be that it has to be a way out of this nightmare.
Will we evict the club?
We would be hostages to the owners and they would know that.
Even a "friendly" separation of club and ground is, IMHO, a bad idea although still better than Duchatelet.
Also a doctor who did this on the basis of the football team they support would be struck off.
Apart from that well done.
We have to think through the various issues though, and I think the Trust will be able to take this forward and address those issues, some of which have already been aired here. Another is that the pool of potential buyers would narrow because there would not be the possibility to borrow against the tangible assets. That's not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but the vast majority of English clubs do have that possibility.