Bruxelles, the only bad PR view that i think is justified is that the decision for this has been made pretty late. We got relegated over a month ago, and our relegation was a possibility all season so the real number crunching should of been done well in advance.
There is an argument to scaling back the budget of the women's division, but all that would of meant is all the best players simpling moving to other ladies clubs with bigger budgets. Most of them are the same as the men, have no affiliation to Charlton and want to earn as much as they can.
When the London Broncos were floating around 4-5 years ago and playing at the Valley, if we announced then they were to become part of our 'sporting network', to be called Charlton Athletic RFC, would there be uproar now if this was a unit we decided to cut ?
And i know its only the first hour, but amongst the 'uproar', the poll at the top of the board is currently 60 / 40 in favour / not bothered by the decision. I expected it to be something different, if you are reading this and haven't voted, add your vote now.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]I don't even think the PR is that bad. Maybe internally but not externally. Who hears of our women's apart from Charlton fans and the odd appearance on a Bank Holiday monday? I don't personally think it will make much difference. "
It's a mid scale PR blunder - it's made the sports pages of The Sun and BBC website. It has caused significant upset amongst a segment of the club. In the overall scale of things these are not major but it is unnecessary. The club should have reduced the cost and raised the money with sponsorship. For the amounts involved that wouldn’t be too difficult to obtain . Outcome – cost reduced, PR success, community link maintained etc.
[cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]Bruxelles, the only bad PR view that i think is justified is that the decision for this has been made pretty late. We got relegated over a month ago, and our relegation was a possibility all season so the real number crunching should of been done well in advance.
There is an argument to scaling back the budget of the women's division, but all that would of meant is all the best players simpling moving to other ladies clubs with bigger budgets. Most of them are the same as the men, have no affiliation to Charlton and want to earn as much as they can.
When the London Broncos were floating around 4-5 years ago and playing at the Valley, if we announced then they were to become part of our 'sporting network', to be called Charlton Athletic RFC, would there be uproar now if this was a unit we decided to cut ?
And i know its only the first hour, but amongst the 'uproar', the poll at the top of the board is currently 60 / 40 in favour / not bothered by the decision. I expected it to be something different, if you are reading this and haven't voted, add your vote now.
See my last post above. I dont regard it as a huge issue but simply on that the more sure footed would have handled it differently. The sums of money simply do not justify the stated rationale. The truth is that the club no long see any real value strategically in womens football and our finances are somewhat less strong than most fans believe. If the club wanted it could sort out sponsorship for them given that raising a large lump of £100k isn't that hard if you know what you are doing and if you want to do it.
how much coverage do potential sponsors get? and how much would they be willing to pay for it?
The sponsors may get the odd outing for the FA Cup final and a mention in the programme but other than one (wo)man and his dog at the game's there is no worth to the sponsor. it's not as if the replica shirts are flying out of the club shop is it?
It is/was a PR excercise that was fine while in the Premiership but something that is not needed and can't be afforded while in the CCC (just like the 100 odd other jobs that will be announced).
Let's wait to see what Varney says and it may explain a lot.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]how much coverage do potential sponsors get? and how much would they be willing to pay for it?
The sponsors may get the odd outing for the FA Cup final and a mention in the programme but other than one (wo)man and his dog at the game's there is no worth to the sponsor. it's not as if the replica shirts are flying out of the club shop is it?
It is/was a PR excercise that was fine while in the Premiership but something that is not needed and be afforded while in the CCC.
Without flogging the discussion to death I can assure you that it wouldn't be too difficult to raise enough via sponsorhsip. It would take maybe 3/4 months to do and maybe time is a bit of a factor in the decision.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]how much coverage do potential sponsors get? and how much would they be willing to pay for it?
The sponsors may get the odd outing for the FA Cup final and a mention in the programme but other than one (wo)man and his dog at the game's there is no worth to the sponsor. it's not as if the replica shirts are flying out of the club shop is it?
It is/was a PR excercise that was fine while in the Premiership but something that is not needed and be afforded while in the CCC.
Without flogging the discussion to death I can assure you that it wouldn't be too difficult to raise enough via sponsorhsip. It would take maybe 3/4 months to do and maybe time is a bit of a factor in the decision.
Didn't Birmingham close their team down last season because they couldn't find a sponsor?
If so many people cared so much for the bloody team then why didnt they go and watch them, support them and finance them, so they could run themselves?
I think they should have run it at zero cost or minimal cost, i think it was a good way of getting women interested in the game, a long term project as a sport, but short term it encouraged that other 50%ish of the population to become more involved and ultimately the mens game would benefit in terms of interest and revenue. A sad day really. Another example of football becoming short termist cash based, although perhaps the womens game does need to stand on its own two feet.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]I think they should have run it at zero cost or minimal cost, i think it was a good way of getting women interested in the game, a long term project as a sport, but short term it encouraged that other 50%ish of the population to become more involved and ultimately the mens game would benefit in terms of interest and revenue. A sad day really. Another example of football becoming short termist cash based, although perhaps the womens game does need to stand on its own two feet.
I find it very difficult to believe that some women go to football (mens) because of ladies' team. More women have started to go to football because of the facilities, the "entertainment" and the whole match day experience and the fashion state of it. yes, there will be more hardcore female fans who follow their team here there and everywhere (Curb_it and Suze to use examples close to home) but i would bet my house that percentage wise there are more women following football in the Prem then any of the leagues below basically because the image of the game has changed. In ther lower leagues this is not the case, there are still a number of horrible grounds that are "old" football.
I think its about role models, and the interest it generates in Charlton in the community. From personal experience i would say it does have an effect although I'm not saying its the only factor.
I was really sad to read about this decision. Unlike many posters on here I have actually followed the ladies team quite closely. I have been to at least 20 games & I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Unfortunately, Arsenal dominate the ladies game to such a large extent that the league has become totally uncompetitive over the last 2 years. It would take a large injection of cash to give us any chance of catching Arsenal and that obviously can't be justified at the moment. However, surely we could have kept the team ticking over at its current level (2nd / 3rd best team in the country) for another season. Ladies football does get quite a lot of press coverage and I just think this is a very short sighted decision that the club may regret one day.
[cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]Pete, out of interest what's the average crowd ?? 50 - 150 ?
Depends a lot on the opposition and the importance of the game. I have been at the Valley to watch the women's team in crowds of 3,000 - 5,000 but I have also been at Northfleet in crowds of less than 100. On average I would say that the crowds are bigger than for the men's reserve team and would probably work out at somewhere near 500 over a season.
[cite]Posted By: Emmeline Pankhurst [/cite]with just a little effort from my 'sisters' at Charlton, it would've been very easy to get the crowds up to a more sustainable level ....
- very short tennis skirts instead of shorts
- Marcus Bent's latest flame(s) up front
- taking off shirts to celebrate a goal should be compulsory
Isn't it just a case of relegation being the catalyst rather than the reason?
Why have other teams turned their back on the women's game? Because as a spectator sport it ranks somewhere between paint-drying and fly-fishing as a spectator sport.
That's not to say it doesn't have a place as a participant sport but as a professional entertainment it has absolutely no future, as a consequence of which any money poured into it might as well be poured into the sewer and should quite properly be saved.
The community side is a different matter.
But of course people are losing their livelihoods here so I wouldn't want to be seen to be too gleeful.
I think Charlton Ladies certainly raised the profile of the club for quite a few women and girls and they have probably played quite a part in getting greater female participation. It is a surprising decision, I have no idea if it is the right one or not long term. As a spectator sport, it does not appeal to me at all really so can't say I will miss it in any way. And anyway, if I want to see a pair of tits in the CAFC shirt, there's always Marcus and JT eh ;)
In 2006/07, when the Addicks finished third in the top flight and were runners-up to quadruple winners Arsenal in the FA Cup final, the budget for the women's set-up was £306,000.
"After very careful consideration we decided we could no longer operate to that level,” said Varney.
"No sponsorship or television revenues are received from the Football Association and none appear likely in the immediate future, and therefore the ability to attract sponsorship for the women's section is very limited as any potential sponsor has limited exposure.
"What a sponsor wants is exposure on television and, apart from the FA Cup final, women's football has no great exposure and can therefore create no brand awareness. This is a problem by no means unique to Charlton.
"In addition very few Charlton supporters watch the first-team matches in particular, and therefore gate revenues are minimal.”
Peter added: "We examined the potential for continuing to operate to a lower cost base, but the minimum the whole operation could be run on was £100,000 and there was no certainty surrounding this figure.
"We also looked at absorbing aspects of the women's section into the Charlton Athletic Community Trust, but this proved impossible to achieve.”
On the subject of the club's community work, fans have complained that the decision damages the club's hard-earned fine reputation as an important part of its surrounding area.
But Peter said: "I understand this point but would argue that we still see tens of thousands of children on our community programme throughout the South East, both boys and girls.
"Because this is funded differently this community work remains untouched by these cuts, but when you have been relegated and you have such a drop in income, tough decisions have to be taken.
"Ultimately, the club's main priority now is to do everything within our power to enhance our opportunity to regain our Premiership status. Everything else has to be scrutinised to the last penny.”
Charlton plc vice chairman Robert Whitehand, who chaired the women's football section, said: "It is sad that we are to lose the women's section and I would like to thank all those who have worked so hard to build it up for their efforts in recent years, in particular women's and girls' football general manager Deb Browne, team manager Keith Boanas and of course the players.
"I would urge the FA to again look at the level of funding for the women's game in this country, or I envisage more clubs having to take the same drastic action as we have.”
International playboy and Charlton fan, WestSideStory, has stepped in at the eleventh hour to save the Charlton Ladies football team from demise. Rumours of the team being renamed "Harem FC" have yet to be substantiated. More reports to follow...
I hope they get saved by sponsorship, i genuinely do, but can people now see that we were allocating over £300k a season and getting around £200 a game in return ?
I know someone posted on here that they could 'easily' secure the required sponsorship but I agree with Varney and don't see that as the case at all. I don't work in sponsorship but have looked after a lot of multi-million pound marketing budgets and there's no way that the Ladies team gets enough exposure to warrant substantial sponsorship investment. You could easily secure a deal for £10k that would get you far greater exposure. You can sponsor TV programs on some mid sized satellite stations for far less than the running costs of the Charlton Ladies team. (And your TVRs would be vastly better).
To be honest, if we're saving £300k a year that's £6k a week in salary free'd up to pay a player who may well have a big impact on whether we get promoted or not. No brainer in my opinion.
I know is shouldn't all boil down to maths and the 'grey suited accountant' who was previously mentioned (besides grey suits are in aren't they?) but as a football fan I care what the first eleven do and as the attendance figures clearly demonstrate I'm in the vast majority by not really caring a jot about the women's team.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Would be interested to hear how, if at all, people's view's have changed in light of the statement.
I think PV came on here, pick and chose the comments and then released it as a statement Henry! he seems to have summed up everyone's views as well as our perceived reasons for the "closure".
Comments
There is an argument to scaling back the budget of the women's division, but all that would of meant is all the best players simpling moving to other ladies clubs with bigger budgets. Most of them are the same as the men, have no affiliation to Charlton and want to earn as much as they can.
When the London Broncos were floating around 4-5 years ago and playing at the Valley, if we announced then they were to become part of our 'sporting network', to be called Charlton Athletic RFC, would there be uproar now if this was a unit we decided to cut ?
And i know its only the first hour, but amongst the 'uproar', the poll at the top of the board is currently 60 / 40 in favour / not bothered by the decision. I expected it to be something different, if you are reading this and haven't voted, add your vote now.
It's a mid scale PR blunder - it's made the sports pages of The Sun and BBC website. It has caused significant upset amongst a segment of the club. In the overall scale of things these are not major but it is unnecessary. The club should have reduced the cost and raised the money with sponsorship. For the amounts involved that wouldn’t be too difficult to obtain . Outcome – cost reduced, PR success, community link maintained etc.
See my last post above. I dont regard it as a huge issue but simply on that the more sure footed would have handled it differently. The sums of money simply do not justify the stated rationale. The truth is that the club no long see any real value strategically in womens football and our finances are somewhat less strong than most fans believe. If the club wanted it could sort out sponsorship for them given that raising a large lump of £100k isn't that hard if you know what you are doing and if you want to do it.
The sponsors may get the odd outing for the FA Cup final and a mention in the programme but other than one (wo)man and his dog at the game's there is no worth to the sponsor. it's not as if the replica shirts are flying out of the club shop is it?
It is/was a PR excercise that was fine while in the Premiership but something that is not needed and can't be afforded while in the CCC (just like the 100 odd other jobs that will be announced).
Let's wait to see what Varney says and it may explain a lot.
Dont know for sure. But I do know quite a lot about securing sponsorship.
Without flogging the discussion to death I can assure you that it wouldn't be too difficult to raise enough via sponsorhsip. It would take maybe 3/4 months to do and maybe time is a bit of a factor in the decision.
If so many people cared so much for the bloody team then why didnt they go and watch them, support them and finance them, so they could run themselves?
;-)
I've been told that when you strip out family and freebies to girls clubs etc, you'd get less than 50 paying people, and that at a very low price.
Its simply not viable with the resources thrown at it.
It's as if Emmeline Pankhurst has risen from the dead and started posting on Charlton Life!
Why have other teams turned their back on the women's game? Because as a spectator sport it ranks somewhere between paint-drying and fly-fishing as a spectator sport.
That's not to say it doesn't have a place as a participant sport but as a professional entertainment it has absolutely no future, as a consequence of which any money poured into it might as well be poured into the sewer and should quite properly be saved.
The community side is a different matter.
But of course people are losing their livelihoods here so I wouldn't want to be seen to be too gleeful.
It is a surprising decision, I have no idea if it is the right one or not long term.
As a spectator sport, it does not appeal to me at all really so can't say I will miss it in any way.
And anyway, if I want to see a pair of tits in the CAFC shirt, there's always Marcus and JT eh ;)
Womens team
"After very careful consideration we decided we could no longer operate to that level,” said Varney.
"No sponsorship or television revenues are received from the Football Association and none appear likely in the immediate future, and therefore the ability to attract sponsorship for the women's section is very limited as any potential sponsor has limited exposure.
"What a sponsor wants is exposure on television and, apart from the FA Cup final, women's football has no great exposure and can therefore create no brand awareness. This is a problem by no means unique to Charlton.
"In addition very few Charlton supporters watch the first-team matches in particular, and therefore gate revenues are minimal.”
Peter added: "We examined the potential for continuing to operate to a lower cost base, but the minimum the whole operation could be run on was £100,000 and there was no certainty surrounding this figure.
"We also looked at absorbing aspects of the women's section into the Charlton Athletic Community Trust, but this proved impossible to achieve.”
On the subject of the club's community work, fans have complained that the decision damages the club's hard-earned fine reputation as an important part of its surrounding area.
But Peter said: "I understand this point but would argue that we still see tens of thousands of children on our community programme throughout the South East, both boys and girls.
"Because this is funded differently this community work remains untouched by these cuts, but when you have been relegated and you have such a drop in income, tough decisions have to be taken.
"Ultimately, the club's main priority now is to do everything within our power to enhance our opportunity to regain our Premiership status. Everything else has to be scrutinised to the last penny.”
Charlton plc vice chairman Robert Whitehand, who chaired the women's football section, said: "It is sad that we are to lose the women's section and I would like to thank all those who have worked so hard to build it up for their efforts in recent years, in particular women's and girls' football general manager Deb Browne, team manager Keith Boanas and of course the players.
"I would urge the FA to again look at the level of funding for the women's game in this country, or I envisage more clubs having to take the same drastic action as we have.”
International playboy and Charlton fan, WestSideStory, has stepped in at the eleventh hour to save the Charlton Ladies football team from demise. Rumours of the team being renamed "Harem FC" have yet to be substantiated. More reports to follow...
that's just not viable.
The priority is to get back up and the decisions were made on that basis.
I know someone posted on here that they could 'easily' secure the required sponsorship but I agree with Varney and don't see that as the case at all. I don't work in sponsorship but have looked after a lot of multi-million pound marketing budgets and there's no way that the Ladies team gets enough exposure to warrant substantial sponsorship investment. You could easily secure a deal for £10k that would get you far greater exposure. You can sponsor TV programs on some mid sized satellite stations for far less than the running costs of the Charlton Ladies team. (And your TVRs would be vastly better).
To be honest, if we're saving £300k a year that's £6k a week in salary free'd up to pay a player who may well have a big impact on whether we get promoted or not. No brainer in my opinion.
I know is shouldn't all boil down to maths and the 'grey suited accountant' who was previously mentioned (besides grey suits are in aren't they?) but as a football fan I care what the first eleven do and as the attendance figures clearly demonstrate I'm in the vast majority by not really caring a jot about the women's team.