It does make you appreciate a bit more what Chris Parkes used to say about how Roland always paid the bills. He absolutely hated us but even he didn't just decide he couldn't be arsed to keep people in jobs and pull all his cash out. Roland is in no way a good bloke, and he's still wanting repaying for all the money he ever put in, but just deciding you don't fancy paying for a club you agreed to take on and walking away is the lowest of the low.
Don't think he'd have thought twice about pulling the plug on funding if he didn't think he could recoup all his money from flogging the stadium. He kept paying the bills because it was in his interests to do so. If he gave one solitary toss about the wellbeing of his staff then he would have paid the bonuses he promised.
We're all a bit cynical of Duchatelet. And with some good reason.
But ..... let's not forget he's had history as a socialist politically, formed his own people's party or whatever it was called. He likes to think of himself as some kind of reformer.
Also ...... he's been kind to injured players out of contract (Leon Best springs to mind), where he continued paying them for an extended period - where legally, he didn't have to.
Yeah, he's a profiteer, making money is his end game. And every asset has it's price. But he doesn't seem to be especially ruthless with people.
We have 46 points and are therefore far from safe. I feel sorry for Wigan but our sole focus should be about winning points. That is the be all and end all.
As others have said 2 wins from 6 now and that should be enough with so many 6 pointers between so many sides below us. I cannot see 3 of them winning 4 from 6, while poor Wigan would have to get 5 from 6 in that scenario, if a 12 PT deduction follows. What a crazy division and season.
This points thing is being done to death. Every year the number required gets hiked up. It will probably be lower, but I cannot see a team being relegated with 52 points.
The problem for Wigan if I understand how it works is not only are they now adrift at the bottom, but if they save themselves, which they are capable of doing, they get deducted the points next season. Is that correct?
No, if they don't finish in the relegation zone, points are deducted and they potentially go down. If they finish in the relegation zone... the deduction rolls over to next season.
If Wigan are relegated then the 12 point deduction would take place next season in L1.
If Wigan are not relegated, they will be deducted 12 points at the end of the season, which may or may not result in relegation.
Sky Sports News speaking to one of the administrators. He said it's a well run club, on the pitch and off. They were taken over 4 weeks ago and are now in administration because "the new owner has decided he doesn't want to continue funding the business".
WTF. How the f*ck?! So EFL approves the deal, new owner loses interest/has a change of heart - 88 year old club's future in jeopardy, jobs in jeopardy, probably going to be relegated. Unbelievable.
Why are we even going through the charade of this Fit and proper Persons Test? So angry hearing this. And we all know this could so easily be our club next. Absolutely farcical.
Sky Sports News speaking to one of the administrators. He said it's a well run club, on the pitch and off. They were taken over 4 weeks ago and are now in administration because "the new owner has decided he doesn't want to continue funding the business".
WTF. How the f*ck?! So EFL approves the deal, new owner loses interest/has a change of heart - 88 year old club's future in jeopardy, jobs in jeopardy, probably going to be relegated. Unbelievable.
Why are we even going through the charade of this Fit and proper Persons Test? So angry hearing this. And we all know this could so easily be our club next. Absolutely farcical.
I agree it's a farce but how do the EFL test that they won't change thier mind?
The biggest problem is the clubs ALL need owner funding to survive. Solve that and everything else either falls into place or becomes irrelevant.
It's really not that difficult. There's all sorts of requirements that could be applied to new owners. You could make new owners provide the EFL with a ring-fenced bond sufficient to cover the club's outgoings for 6 months/a year/ however long, in the event that the new owner is no longer able to fund them. That would prevent the likes of Southall and Lawrence Bassini from getting involved when they haven't actually got any money, and would deter the likes of the new Wigan owner who has just decided on a whim that he can't be bothered to pay the wages anymore.
Travel companies have to provide a bond in order to get an ATOL Licence, airlines have to demonstrate that they have sufficient funding to operate for three months without any income, and have to provide a detailed funding plan for the first two years of operation. All of this could be applied to football club owners.
The main problem, in my opinion, is that changes such as the above need to be voted on by members, and their are now so many cowboys involved that voting for proper regulation would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
The government needs to get involved in this.
I appreciate what your saying and agree that writing the rules wouldn't be that difficult. Also as you point out the owners would never vote for it either because they are chancers them selves or it would mean they could never sell the club, if they ever wanted to.
One thing I would point out is that no one expects a travel operator to subsidise the business through profits gained through another business, or acquired personal wealth.
Football club shouldn't loose vast sums of money, that's the real problem. What other business would trade for 115 years, be wound up, and make a lose almost every year and still be trading?
You never hear fans moaning that the owners are spending too much, might critic the way its spent, or that season tickets are too cheap etc etc.
Sky Sports News speaking to one of the administrators. He said it's a well run club, on the pitch and off. They were taken over 4 weeks ago and are now in administration because "the new owner has decided he doesn't want to continue funding the business".
WTF. How the f*ck?! So EFL approves the deal, new owner loses interest/has a change of heart - 88 year old club's future in jeopardy, jobs in jeopardy, probably going to be relegated. Unbelievable.
Why are we even going through the charade of this Fit and proper Persons Test? So angry hearing this. And we all know this could so easily be our club next. Absolutely farcical.
Sky Sports News speaking to one of the administrators. He said it's a well run club, on the pitch and off. They were taken over 4 weeks ago and are now in administration because "the new owner has decided he doesn't want to continue funding the business".
WTF. How the f*ck?! So EFL approves the deal, new owner loses interest/has a change of heart - 88 year old club's future in jeopardy, jobs in jeopardy, probably going to be relegated. Unbelievable.
Why are we even going through the charade of this Fit and proper Persons Test? So angry hearing this. And we all know this could so easily be our club next. Absolutely farcical.
I agree it's a farce but how do the EFL test that they won't change thier mind?
The biggest problem is the clubs ALL need owner funding to survive. Solve that and everything else either falls into place or becomes irrelevant.
It's really not that difficult. There's all sorts of requirements that could be applied to new owners. You could make new owners provide the EFL with a ring-fenced bond sufficient to cover the club's outgoings for 6 months/a year/ however long, in the event that the new owner is no longer able to fund them. That would prevent the likes of Southall and Lawrence Bassini from getting involved when they haven't actually got any money, and would deter the likes of the new Wigan owner who has just decided on a whim that he can't be bothered to pay the wages anymore.
Travel companies have to provide a bond in order to get an ATOL Licence, airlines have to demonstrate that they have sufficient funding to operate for three months without any income, and have to provide a detailed funding plan for the first two years of operation. All of this could be applied to football club owners.
The main problem, in my opinion, is that changes such as the above need to be voted on by members, and their are now so many cowboys involved that voting for proper regulation would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
The government needs to get involved in this.
I appreciate what your saying and agree that writing the rules wouldn't be that difficult. Also as you point out the owners would never vote for it either because they are chancers them selves or it would mean they could never sell the club, if they ever wanted to.
One thing I would point out is that no one expects a travel operator to subsidise the business through profits gained through another business, or acquired personal wealth.
Football club shouldn't loose vast sums of money, that's the real problem. What other business would trade for 115 years, be wound up, and make a lose almost every year and still be trading?
You never hear fans moaning that the owners are spending too much, might critic the way its spent, or that season tickets are too cheap etc etc.
Can't disagree with any of that. I think we're in agreement that, one way or another, the whole thing has become an absolute mess.
Horrible for any club and goes to show it can happen to any club below the Premier League completely out of the blue.
We have to be so careful that this doesn’t happen to us, as we all know it’s a very real possibility.
In terms of survival hopes, it does make it seem as though if we get to 52 points, that will surely be enough now.
Wigan’s form has been incredible, luckily for them it has, otherwise they’d be gone now. However, I don’t believe they’ll carry on this form as good as they have been. They may still do well, but they’ll drop points along the way, especially with the quick turnaround in games.
That means if we get to 52, that should be enough. That’s a hell of an ask for teams below us to get more than that, and for Wigan to get more 64 or more points.
I think 1 team will go down with 52, or more points.
With Wigan heading for safety before this, they’ve now effectively got 38 points.
Therefore, you’re saying that 4 of them, plus Middlesbrough on 44 and us on 46, will get more than 52 points? That’s a hell of an ask.
That’s why I believe 52 now will be enough.
I would normally say its impossible but everyone is picking up points, not just draws, winning games.
If Birmingham loose tonight but win at the weekend they won't be safe yet. Win tonight and loose at the weekend however they probably will be.
Do you think 2 wins will make us safe? I don't.
You’ve got to remember that teams at the bottom are all playing each other so they all can’t win.
There will be points dropped along the way.
With a team finishing on 52 points and still going down, you’re asking everyone else at the bottom in this fight to go on promotion form for the rest of the season. That just won’t happen.
There will be twists and turns, teams will win games but relegation on 52 is now less of a probability.
In terms of teams playing each other at the bottom of the league:
Wigan have been on amazing form but effectively have 38 points now. They’ve got to play QPR, Barnsley, Hull, and us.
Luton have got to play Reading, Barnsley, Huddersfield, QPR, and Hull.
Barnsley have got to play Stoke, Luton, and Wigan.
Huddersfield have got to play Birmingham, Reading, and Luton.
Hull have got to play Middlesbrough, Wigan, and Luton.
Stoke have got to play Barnsley and Birmingham.
Middlesbrough have got to play Hull, QPR, and Reading, with Wednesday on the final game of the season.
—— The point I am making is, there are around 16 fixtures of teams at the bottom playing each other which means there are going to be plenty of points dropped, making it extremely difficult for 6 of the bottom 8 teams to get 52 points or more.
Overall, yes, I believe if we win another 2 games we will stay up.
The tricky scenario is if 2 of the sides below us collapse completely (e.g. Stoke and Hull), losing all the 6 pointers, with the rest of the teams playing well AND all the 6 pointers between them resulting in wins for one of the sides. You could end up with 2 relegated teams in the mid 40s with the next 5 teams all bunched around say the 52/53 point mark.
Unlikely, but possible. Say Luton win 4, draw 1 and lose to Barnsley, Barnsley win 4 and lose 2 to Wigan and Brentford. That would leave both on 53 points
Wigan win 5 matches, that would leave them on 65-12 = 53
I doubt Wigan are going to win 5.
Their administration will mean teams have their tails up against them.
It does make you appreciate a bit more what Chris Parkes used to say about how Roland always paid the bills. He absolutely hated us but even he didn't just decide he couldn't be arsed to keep people in jobs and pull all his cash out. Roland is in no way a good bloke, and he's still wanting repaying for all the money he ever put in, but just deciding you don't fancy paying for a club you agreed to take on and walking away is the lowest of the low.
Don't think he'd have thought twice about pulling the plug on funding if he didn't think he could recoup all his money from flogging the stadium. He kept paying the bills because it was in his interests to do so. If he gave one solitary toss about the wellbeing of his staff then he would have paid the bonuses he promised.
We're all a bit cynical of Duchatelet. And with some good reason.
But ..... let's not forget he's had history as a socialist politically, formed his own people's party or whatever it was called. He likes to think of himself as some kind of reformer.
Also ...... he's been kind to injured players out of contract (Leon Best springs to mind), where he continued paying them for an extended period - where legally, he didn't have to.
Yeah, he's a profiteer, making money is his end game. And every asset has it's price. But he doesn't seem to be especially ruthless with people.
Don’t know where this thing about RD being a socialist comes from. Is there any actual evidence to support it or is it just a mistake that keeps getting repeated?
No wonder Wigan have been on fire.. They must have known this 12 point deduction was coming??? Now they have to keep winning to stay away from the drop.
Let’s not forget that Peterborough were relegated 2012/2013 season with 54 points.
Yep each season is different , current bottom club Luton (ignoring Wigan for now) would have stayed up last season with their current 40 points and -27 GD and they still have 6 games left and the scum finished 4th bottom on 44 pts
It does make you appreciate a bit more what Chris Parkes used to say about how Roland always paid the bills. He absolutely hated us but even he didn't just decide he couldn't be arsed to keep people in jobs and pull all his cash out. Roland is in no way a good bloke, and he's still wanting repaying for all the money he ever put in, but just deciding you don't fancy paying for a club you agreed to take on and walking away is the lowest of the low.
Don't think he'd have thought twice about pulling the plug on funding if he didn't think he could recoup all his money from flogging the stadium. He kept paying the bills because it was in his interests to do so. If he gave one solitary toss about the wellbeing of his staff then he would have paid the bonuses he promised.
We're all a bit cynical of Duchatelet. And with some good reason.
But ..... let's not forget he's had history as a socialist politically, formed his own people's party or whatever it was called. He likes to think of himself as some kind of reformer.
Also ...... he's been kind to injured players out of contract (Leon Best springs to mind), where he continued paying them for an extended period - where legally, he didn't have to.
Yeah, he's a profiteer, making money is his end game. And every asset has it's price. But he doesn't seem to be especially ruthless with people.
Don’t know where this thing about RD being a socialist comes from. Is there any actual evidence to support it or is it just a mistake that keeps getting repeated?
Socialist is a bit extreme, more of a Liberal Democrat.
"In 2004 Vivant entered a political alliance with the Flemish Liberals and Democrats (VLD) and Duchâtelet published his second book De weg naar meer netto binnenlands geluk (The road to more net domestic happiness)."
He founded Vivant on a manifesto that included green taxes and UBI.
It does make you appreciate a bit more what Chris Parkes used to say about how Roland always paid the bills. He absolutely hated us but even he didn't just decide he couldn't be arsed to keep people in jobs and pull all his cash out. Roland is in no way a good bloke, and he's still wanting repaying for all the money he ever put in, but just deciding you don't fancy paying for a club you agreed to take on and walking away is the lowest of the low.
Don't think he'd have thought twice about pulling the plug on funding if he didn't think he could recoup all his money from flogging the stadium. He kept paying the bills because it was in his interests to do so. If he gave one solitary toss about the wellbeing of his staff then he would have paid the bonuses he promised.
We're all a bit cynical of Duchatelet. And with some good reason.
But ..... let's not forget he's had history as a socialist politically, formed his own people's party or whatever it was called. He likes to think of himself as some kind of reformer.
Also ...... he's been kind to injured players out of contract (Leon Best springs to mind), where he continued paying them for an extended period - where legally, he didn't have to.
Yeah, he's a profiteer, making money is his end game. And every asset has it's price. But he doesn't seem to be especially ruthless with people.
Don’t know where this thing about RD being a socialist comes from. Is there any actual evidence to support it or is it just a mistake that keeps getting repeated?
This points thing is being done to death. Every year the number required gets hiked up. It will probably be lower, but I cannot see a team being relegated with 52 points.
4 of the last 5 years we would be very safe by now, the one other year 51 was the last relegation place, yet somehow people think we'll need 52 or 53 this season. With so many 6 pointers and so many games in a short period of time meaning injuries and suspensions potentially having a far bigger impact, I think one more win and we're probably safe, would require an lot of teams to consistently perform far better than they have done so far this season.
It does make you appreciate a bit more what Chris Parkes used to say about how Roland always paid the bills. He absolutely hated us but even he didn't just decide he couldn't be arsed to keep people in jobs and pull all his cash out. Roland is in no way a good bloke, and he's still wanting repaying for all the money he ever put in, but just deciding you don't fancy paying for a club you agreed to take on and walking away is the lowest of the low.
Don't think he'd have thought twice about pulling the plug on funding if he didn't think he could recoup all his money from flogging the stadium. He kept paying the bills because it was in his interests to do so. If he gave one solitary toss about the wellbeing of his staff then he would have paid the bonuses he promised.
We're all a bit cynical of Duchatelet. And with some good reason.
But ..... let's not forget he's had history as a socialist politically, formed his own people's party or whatever it was called. He likes to think of himself as some kind of reformer.
Also ...... he's been kind to injured players out of contract (Leon Best springs to mind), where he continued paying them for an extended period - where legally, he didn't have to.
Yeah, he's a profiteer, making money is his end game. And every asset has it's price. But he doesn't seem to be especially ruthless with people.
Don’t know where this thing about RD being a socialist comes from. Is there any actual evidence to support it or is it just a mistake that keeps getting repeated?
As this table shows, the bottom seven had more points at this stage in 2013.
I also think it's worth looking at the table as whole. There was only 14 points separating 6th and 22nd, a lot tighter all round than compared to this season. It's just like anything comparing single data points like the points needed to survive on their own aren't all that helpful.
I wonder what would have happened had the Championship been ended early (like Leagues One and Two) with final positions decided by PPG. Presumably Wigan would still have had a 12 point reduction applied which (I presume, because I can't find the Championship table as it stood at lockdown) means that they would have gone down along with Luton and Barnsley instead of us. Or would the EFL have stuck with the PPG based final standing as they would have already been announced, relegating us and giving Wigan a 12 point deduction next season? All conjecture, but it goes to show yet again how screwed up the PPG outcomes would be.
There is an argument to say this could go against us, even with a 12 point deduction they are not out of it and it means when they play us they will have it all to play for where as when they would have played they would have had nothing to play for.
Good point however their fight and spirit will be matched with ours. Not often I had said that about a Charlton team but I don't think there are many teams who have our togetherness.
I wonder what would have happened had the Championship been ended early (like Leagues One and Two) with final positions decided by PPG. Presumably Wigan would still have had a 12 point reduction applied which (I presume, because I can't find the Championship table as it stood at lockdown) means that they would have gone down along with Luton and Barnsley instead of us. Or would the EFL have stuck with the PPG based final standing as they would have already been announced, relegating us and giving Wigan a 12 point deduction next season? All conjecture, but it goes to show yet again how screwed up the PPG outcomes would be.
The season would have ended so points deducted next season.
EFL must realise that new owners must be required to deposit some money before they can take over a club.
I've not seen anywhere a calculation as to how many points would be needed to avoid relegation, because that would be extremely difficult without some computer programme to assist.
But it could actually be the case that 49,50, or 51 could be guaranteed to be enough and we just don't know (because of all the tens of possible permutations regarding bottom teams playing each other).
It does make you appreciate a bit more what Chris Parkes used to say about how Roland always paid the bills. He absolutely hated us but even he didn't just decide he couldn't be arsed to keep people in jobs and pull all his cash out. Roland is in no way a good bloke, and he's still wanting repaying for all the money he ever put in, but just deciding you don't fancy paying for a club you agreed to take on and walking away is the lowest of the low.
Don't think he'd have thought twice about pulling the plug on funding if he didn't think he could recoup all his money from flogging the stadium. He kept paying the bills because it was in his interests to do so. If he gave one solitary toss about the wellbeing of his staff then he would have paid the bonuses he promised.
We're all a bit cynical of Duchatelet. And with some good reason.
But ..... let's not forget he's had history as a socialist politically, formed his own people's party or whatever it was called. He likes to think of himself as some kind of reformer.
Also ...... he's been kind to injured players out of contract (Leon Best springs to mind), where he continued paying them for an extended period - where legally, he didn't have to.
Yeah, he's a profiteer, making money is his end game. And every asset has it's price. But he doesn't seem to be especially ruthless with people.
Don’t know where this thing about RD being a socialist comes from. Is there any actual evidence to support it or is it just a mistake that keeps getting repeated?
The political party he founded is a clue.
Liberal is the most misused and misunderstood phrase in politics (even worse than communist or anarchist). To Americans it's somewhere near Lenin, to Trots it's somewhere approaching the Monday Club. Problems with binary approach: Duchatelet's party Vivant was an acronym in Flemish for Voor Individuele Vrijheid en Arbeid in een Nieuwe Toekomst, ("for individual freedom and labour in a new future") (fromhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivant). Such noted socialists as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman wouldn't disagree with that slogan but might disagree with the details behind Vivant's policies. Looking at what he's getting at in that, it seems to me a mixture of liberal economics (which means less state control and regulation) and a welfare state to aid social cohesion. A bit like Dominic Cummings' pitch to the north at the last election. It isn't socialism. Vivant isn't a clue to Duchatelet being a socialist, and people on the political right are making the exact same mistake as the far left in collapsing all their political opponents into believing in the same things.
I wonder what would have happened had the Championship been ended early (like Leagues One and Two) with final positions decided by PPG. Presumably Wigan would still have had a 12 point reduction applied which (I presume, because I can't find the Championship table as it stood at lockdown) means that they would have gone down along with Luton and Barnsley instead of us. Or would the EFL have stuck with the PPG based final standing as they would have already been announced, relegating us and giving Wigan a 12 point deduction next season? All conjecture, but it goes to show yet again how screwed up the PPG outcomes would be.
The season would have ended so points deducted next season.
EFL must realise that new owners must be required to deposit some money before they can take over a club.
Or they could stop letting thier clubs loosing shit loads of money every season?
Comments
But ..... let's not forget he's had history as a socialist politically, formed his own people's party or whatever it was called.
He likes to think of himself as some kind of reformer.
Also ...... he's been kind to injured players out of contract (Leon Best springs to mind), where he continued paying them for an extended period - where legally, he didn't have to.
Yeah, he's a profiteer, making money is his end game. And every asset has it's price.
But he doesn't seem to be especially ruthless with people.
I feel sorry for Wigan but our sole focus should be about winning points.
That is the be all and end all.
One thing I would point out is that no one expects a travel operator to subsidise the business through profits gained through another business, or acquired personal wealth.
Football club shouldn't loose vast sums of money, that's the real problem. What other business would trade for 115 years, be wound up, and make a lose almost every year and still be trading?
You never hear fans moaning that the owners are spending too much, might critic the way its spent, or that season tickets are too cheap etc etc.
Their administration will mean teams have their tails up against them.
and the scum finished 4th bottom on 44 pts
As this table shows, the bottom seven had more points at this stage in 2013.
"In 2004 Vivant entered a political alliance with the Flemish Liberals and Democrats (VLD) and Duchâtelet published his second book De weg naar meer netto binnenlands geluk (The road to more net domestic happiness)."
He founded Vivant on a manifesto that included green taxes and UBI.
It stinks of Charlton 0 0 Wigan
But it could actually be the case that 49,50, or 51 could be guaranteed to be enough and we just don't know
(because of all the tens of possible permutations regarding bottom teams playing each other).
Liberal is the most misused and misunderstood phrase in politics (even worse than communist or anarchist). To Americans it's somewhere near Lenin, to Trots it's somewhere approaching the Monday Club. Problems with binary approach: Duchatelet's party Vivant was an acronym in Flemish for Voor Individuele Vrijheid en Arbeid in een Nieuwe Toekomst, ("for individual freedom and labour in a new future") (from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivant).
Such noted socialists as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman wouldn't disagree with that slogan but might disagree with the details behind Vivant's policies.
Looking at what he's getting at in that, it seems to me a mixture of liberal economics (which means less state control and regulation) and a welfare state to aid social cohesion. A bit like Dominic Cummings' pitch to the north at the last election. It isn't socialism. Vivant isn't a clue to Duchatelet being a socialist, and people on the political right are making the exact same mistake as the far left in collapsing all their political opponents into believing in the same things.