I'd love Thomas and Andy Holt to sit down over a pint. I reckon they would actually find a lot in common. Both of them "get" football.
Don't get me wrong I think Andy Holt has done a fantastic job at AS.
It's his insistence that no one else can be trusted to spend their own money that grates me.
You can't run Charlton the way he runs Stanley, the same way you can't run Charlton like Man United is run.
He's not wrong that there is overspending in football or that some owners/clubs would greatly benefit from some sort of oversight or similar.
Where he's wrong (as explained very well in the post earlier by the PFA lawyer) is by trying to apply a one size fits all approach to a situation where clubs are fundamentally NOT equal. Even in League One, some clubs just are bigger than others.
His militant approach isn't doing him many favours either. I don't believe he's got the idea of tearing other clubs down out of malice but it's what his version amounted to.
I'd love Thomas and Andy Holt to sit down over a pint. I reckon they would actually find a lot in common. Both of them "get" football.
Don't get me wrong I think Andy Holt has done a fantastic job at AS.
It's his insistence that no one else can be trusted to spend their own money that grates me.
You can't run Charlton the way he runs Stanley, the same way you can't run Charlton like Man United is run.
He's not wrong that there is overspending in football or that some owners/clubs would greatly benefit from some sort of oversight or similar.
Where he's wrong (as explained very well in the post earlier by the PFA lawyer) is by trying to apply a one size fits all approach to a situation where clubs are fundamentally NOT equal. Even in League One, some clubs just are bigger than others.
His militant approach isn't doing him many favours either. I don't believe he's got the idea of tearing other clubs down out of malice but it's what his version amounted to.
he hasn't said that though, he has said that bigger clubs should have a bigger limit depending on income
He also moans the FFP penalties only apply retrospectively, but that is always going to be the case with every version of FFP, salary caps etc? You can only be punished after you've done it
I'd love Thomas and Andy Holt to sit down over a pint. I reckon they would actually find a lot in common. Both of them "get" football.
Don't get me wrong I think Andy Holt has done a fantastic job at AS.
It's his insistence that no one else can be trusted to spend their own money that grates me.
You can't run Charlton the way he runs Stanley, the same way you can't run Charlton like Man United is run.
He's not wrong that there is overspending in football or that some owners/clubs would greatly benefit from some sort of oversight or similar.
Where he's wrong (as explained very well in the post earlier by the PFA lawyer) is by trying to apply a one size fits all approach to a situation where clubs are fundamentally NOT equal. Even in League One, some clubs just are bigger than others.
His militant approach isn't doing him many favours either. I don't believe he's got the idea of tearing other clubs down out of malice but it's what his version amounted to.
He is right in the fact that some very average league 1 players are paid far to much money. It's obviously not a problem unique to league 1. He is wrong that a lack of wage cap, or other instrument, forces clubs to pay it.
Football, I am talking about in England, must be unique in any form of business. Almost (in % terms) everyone makes a lose yet hardly any go out of business.
You can argue until the cows come home that it shouldn't be a business but the fact is it is. It has to operate under the same rules, with the same benifits, as any other type of business.
I wonder how much investment would have been lost to the game if the regulation was as tight as some want?
To be fair, the salary cap was a crap idea but the motivation behind it was to stop clubs gambling their all and ending up as Bury or Macclesfield. I'm glad it's gone but those underlying problems haven't gone away - Andy Holt's points about FFP not working are bang on (as we've seen with the Massives, WRDC, etc).
We currently have an owner with bigger pockets than most others in this division, but I still want to see us run sustainably because we've seen what happens otherwise.
FFP isn't perfectly constructed, sure, but by far its biggest problem is that EFL's implementation has been ludicrous. Punishments handed to blatant rule breakers have been woefully inadequate and risibly inconsistent. The owners of Birmingham, SheffW and Derby knew all along and have carried on in the certain knowledge they'd get off scot free.
The absence of this version of the salary cap makes how much difference to Charlton's/anybody's wages budget in League 1. They're all still constrained to 60% of Turnover (that's income, revenue from all sources). All Charlton has had for 12 months is the money from EFL. Match day income is effectively nil. Charlton's commercial income is among the lowest in the division. The twunt saw to it that CAFC as a commercial concern was stunted and increasingly isolated from all sorts of revenue streams. TS might be our wealthiest and most enthusiastic owner for a dozen years or so but 60% of fuck all still don't amount to lucrative contracts for promising players. Nonetheless now might be the moment to secure Stockley and Shinnie(?) on permanents and offer decent contracts to some we'd like to hang on to.
Amongst the lowest in the Championship maybe, but surely amongst the highest in L1
The accounts (due to be) published next month will show us for sure but all previous analysis of CAFC's figures has shown them to be well below par, whichever division we've been in at the time - years of twunt followed by nearly a year of the snakes will have ensured the progression was downward. TS simply hasn't had time or opportunity, yet, to make much impression. Some form of Zynex title/stadium sponsorship/shirt sponsorship could be the workable route for cash into the 'business' We've seen the EFL doesn;t give a shit about source of "income" even when that income is illusory e.g. taxi firm sponsorship at Sheff W sale of ground to themselves followed by borrowing monies secured on the property they'd already "sold".
One thing that I think could be done is to scrap the transfer window for any clubs below the Championship. The logic for this is clubs could run with smaller squads in the knowledge they can address problem areas as and when they arrive.
To be fair, the salary cap was a crap idea but the motivation behind it was to stop clubs gambling their all and ending up as Bury or Macclesfield. I'm glad it's gone but those underlying problems haven't gone away - Andy Holt's points about FFP not working are bang on (as we've seen with the Massives, WRDC, etc).
We currently have an owner with bigger pockets than most others in this division, but I still want to see us run sustainably because we've seen what happens otherwise.
FFP isn't perfectly constructed, sure, but by far its biggest problem is that EFL's implementation has been ludicrous. Punishments handed to blatant rule breakers have been woefully inadequate and risibly inconsistent. The owners of Birmingham, SheffW and Derby knew all along and have carried on in the certain knowledge they'd get off scot free.
The absence of this version of the salary cap makes how much difference to Charlton's/anybody's wages budget in League 1. They're all still constrained to 60% of Turnover (that's income, revenue from all sources). All Charlton has had for 12 months is the money from EFL. Match day income is effectively nil. Charlton's commercial income is among the lowest in the division. The twunt saw to it that CAFC as a commercial concern was stunted and increasingly isolated from all sorts of revenue streams. TS might be our wealthiest and most enthusiastic owner for a dozen years or so but 60% of fuck all still don't amount to lucrative contracts for promising players. Nonetheless now might be the moment to secure Stockley and Shinnie(?) on permanents and offer decent contracts to some we'd like to hang on to.
Amongst the lowest in the Championship maybe, but surely amongst the highest in L1
The accounts (due to be) published next month will show us for sure but all previous analysis of CAFC's figures has shown them to be well below par, whichever division we've been in at the time - years of twunt followed by nearly a year of the snakes will have ensured the progression was downward. TS simply hasn't had time or opportunity, yet, to make much impression. Some form of Zynex title/stadium sponsorship/shirt sponsorship could be the workable route for cash into the 'business' We've seen the EFL doesn;t give a shit about source of "income" even when that income is illusory e.g. taxi firm sponsorship at Sheff W sale of ground to themselves followed by borrowing monies secured on the property they'd already "sold".
Our commercial income for our last 2 seasons in league 1 was about 1.3 million, admittedly that did include getting to the play offs on both occasions.
By comparison Luton's was just over a million, Barnsley about 500k, Sunderland 2.3 million and MK Dons 2.5 million (but that includes league distributions, which we booked at 1.5 million) so call it a million.
It's almost impossible to work out, from the accounts, what anyone else's commercial income is as they file the "small companies" version which is basically a balance sheet and some notes.
I would strongly suspect our commercial income was in the top 4, last time we were in league 1, despite any hospitality and advertising boycotts.
Although the Aussies probably spent a fair bit on hospitality
He also moans the FFP penalties only apply retrospectively, but that is always going to be the case with every version of FFP, salary caps etc? You can only be punished after you've done it
The punishment should be delivered in the season that you broke the rules is what he is saying, Sheffield Wednesday for example were allowed to delay things so they received their punishment this season and thus gave themselves a chance to stay up.
To be fair, the salary cap was a crap idea but the motivation behind it was to stop clubs gambling their all and ending up as Bury or Macclesfield. I'm glad it's gone but those underlying problems haven't gone away - Andy Holt's points about FFP not working are bang on (as we've seen with the Massives, WRDC, etc).
We currently have an owner with bigger pockets than most others in this division, but I still want to see us run sustainably because we've seen what happens otherwise.
FFP isn't perfectly constructed, sure, but by far its biggest problem is that EFL's implementation has been ludicrous. Punishments handed to blatant rule breakers have been woefully inadequate and risibly inconsistent. The owners of Birmingham, SheffW and Derby knew all along and have carried on in the certain knowledge they'd get off scot free.
The absence of this version of the salary cap makes how much difference to Charlton's/anybody's wages budget in League 1. They're all still constrained to 60% of Turnover (that's income, revenue from all sources). All Charlton has had for 12 months is the money from EFL. Match day income is effectively nil. Charlton's commercial income is among the lowest in the division. The twunt saw to it that CAFC as a commercial concern was stunted and increasingly isolated from all sorts of revenue streams. TS might be our wealthiest and most enthusiastic owner for a dozen years or so but 60% of fuck all still don't amount to lucrative contracts for promising players. Nonetheless now might be the moment to secure Stockley and Shinnie(?) on permanents and offer decent contracts to some we'd like to hang on to.
Amongst the lowest in the Championship maybe, but surely amongst the highest in L1
The accounts (due to be) published next month will show us for sure but all previous analysis of CAFC's figures has shown them to be well below par, whichever division we've been in at the time - years of twunt followed by nearly a year of the snakes will have ensured the progression was downward. TS simply hasn't had time or opportunity, yet, to make much impression. Some form of Zynex title/stadium sponsorship/shirt sponsorship could be the workable route for cash into the 'business' We've seen the EFL doesn;t give a shit about source of "income" even when that income is illusory e.g. taxi firm sponsorship at Sheff W sale of ground to themselves followed by borrowing monies secured on the property they'd already "sold".
Our commercial income for our last 2 seasons in league 1 was about 1.3 million, admittedly that did include getting to the play offs on both occasions.
By comparison Luton's was just over a million, Barnsley about 500k, Sunderland 2.3 million and MK Dons 2.5 million (but that includes league distributions, which we booked at 1.5 million) so call it a million.
It's almost impossible to work out, from the accounts, what anyone else's commercial income is as they file the "small companies" version which is basically a balance sheet and some notes.
I would strongly suspect our commercial income was in the top 4, last time we were in league 1, despite any hospitality and advertising boycotts.
Although the Aussies probably spent a fair bit on hospitality
Our commercial incomes is slightly distorted by outsourcing of the shop and of hospitality and catering.
It has also been impacted by boycotts and the total incompetence of owners.
Whether there is huge room for increases in commercial income is debatable but we have seen with the massive improvement on Valley Pass just what is possible with a savy commercial director (Mumford), some funding and backing the existing commercial staff (Ravi/Jo/Etc) to do their job. We've seen the like of Axis return already.
That we out sell every other club in league one and are in the top four or five in the championship in terms of streams of games sold shows there is some untapped potential.
And no disrespect to @swisdom who put his money were his mouth was when the club really needed it there is huge potential with shirt sponsorship.
No. we're not and will never be Man Utd but we can and will improve.
He also moans the FFP penalties only apply retrospectively, but that is always going to be the case with every version of FFP, salary caps etc? You can only be punished after you've done it
The punishment should be delivered in the season that you broke the rules is what he is saying, Sheffield Wednesday for example were allowed to delay things so they received their punishment this season and thus gave themselves a chance to stay up.
Absolutely I don't disagree with that at all but by the time case has been put together and then the verdict made, combined with the time for appeal for the offending club. Is that feasible?
One thing that I think could be done is to scrap the transfer window for any clubs below the Championship. The logic for this is clubs could run with smaller squads in the knowledge they can address problem areas as and when they arrive.
I can spot some flaws in that idea, Mutts - might need a bit more work.
I'm not sure how the transfer windows are legal. It's very clearly a restraint of trade.
Imagine you were a banker, looking for work, and all the banks rejected you on the basis that the Bank of England had decreed they were only allowed to hire new bankers in certain months of the year?
Or imagine being a bank, desperately in need of more staff, but can't employ anyone for 4 months.
It's ridiculous when you apply the rule to anything other than football. Why is football so different to every other industry?
The players haven't kicked up too much of a fuss because they've just insisted their contracts run window to window, but I've no idea why no club as challenged the whole transfer window system. There will come a Bosman moment when a club desperately in need of extra players (like Liverpool this season) or desperately in need of the cash from a player sale (like at least a dozen clubs at any one given time) will challenge the transfer window system, and they'll win.
One thing that I think could be done is to scrap the transfer window for any clubs below the Championship. The logic for this is clubs could run with smaller squads in the knowledge they can address problem areas as and when they arrive.
I can spot some flaws in that idea, Mutts - might need a bit more work.
I think the flaws you can spot are not flaws, just restrictions.
One thing that I think could be done is to scrap the transfer window for any clubs below the Championship. The logic for this is clubs could run with smaller squads in the knowledge they can address problem areas as and when they arrive.
I can spot some flaws in that idea, Mutts - might need a bit more work.
I think the flaws you can spot are not flaws, just restrictions.
Not sure about that. So no transfer window affecting L1&2 so they can keep smaller squads and add should they need to from other L1&2 clubs, who are also keeping smaller squads? My logical thinking says that doesn't quite compute!
He also moans the FFP penalties only apply retrospectively, but that is always going to be the case with every version of FFP, salary caps etc? You can only be punished after you've done it
Holt is very vocal but does anyone know what their budget was like when they got promoted from the conference and league 2. Was it average and down to being a well run club or did he throw money at it.
I'm not sure how the transfer windows are legal. It's very clearly a restraint of trade.
Imagine you were a banker, looking for work, and all the banks rejected you on the basis that the Bank of England had decreed they were only allowed to hire new bankers in certain months of the year?
Or imagine being a bank, desperately in need of more staff, but can't employ anyone for 4 months.
It's ridiculous when you apply the rule to anything other than football. Why is football so different to every other industry?
The players haven't kicked up too much of a fuss because they've just insisted their contracts run window to window, but I've no idea why no club as challenged the whole transfer window system. There will come a Bosman moment when a club desperately in need of extra players (like Liverpool this season) or desperately in need of the cash from a player sale (like at least a dozen clubs at any one given time) will challenge the transfer window system, and they'll win.
That’s why free agents can sign for anyone at any point.
The wage cap in L1 was totally unfair and I am glad it has gone, Charlton are one of the biggest clubs with a rich owner and should be able to spend their way out.
The Championship however needs a wage cap, clubs are totally irresponsible with their money and owners throw money at clubs whom are spending beyond their means. When we get back there I hope there is a wage cap that brings all clubs ability to over spend in cheque and gives us more chance of competing against those clubs with bigger income and richer owners, especially given TS will be poor in comparative standards.
Comments
It's his insistence that no one else can be trusted to spend their own money that grates me.
You can't run Charlton the way he runs Stanley, the same way you can't run Charlton like Man United is run.
There are clubs overspending, but they are the exception not the rule. Because Thomas wants to spend X, that is TS call and decision, not Holt's
Where he's wrong (as explained very well in the post earlier by the PFA lawyer) is by trying to apply a one size fits all approach to a situation where clubs are fundamentally NOT equal. Even in League One, some clubs just are bigger than others.
His militant approach isn't doing him many favours either. I don't believe he's got the idea of tearing other clubs down out of malice but it's what his version amounted to.
Football, I am talking about in England, must be unique in any form of business. Almost (in % terms) everyone makes a lose yet hardly any go out of business.
You can argue until the cows come home that it shouldn't be a business but the fact is it is. It has to operate under the same rules, with the same benifits, as any other type of business.
I wonder how much investment would have been lost to the game if the regulation was as tight as some want?
By comparison Luton's was just over a million, Barnsley about 500k, Sunderland 2.3 million and MK Dons 2.5 million (but that includes league distributions, which we booked at 1.5 million) so call it a million.
It's almost impossible to work out, from the accounts, what anyone else's commercial income is as they file the "small companies" version which is basically a balance sheet and some notes.
I would strongly suspect our commercial income was in the top 4, last time we were in league 1, despite any hospitality and advertising boycotts.
Although the Aussies probably spent a fair bit on hospitality
It has also been impacted by boycotts and the total incompetence of owners.
Whether there is huge room for increases in commercial income is debatable but we have seen with the massive improvement on Valley Pass just what is possible with a savy commercial director (Mumford), some funding and backing the existing commercial staff (Ravi/Jo/Etc) to do their job. We've seen the like of Axis return already.
That we out sell every other club in league one and are in the top four or five in the championship in terms of streams of games sold shows there is some untapped potential.
And no disrespect to @swisdom who put his money were his mouth was when the club really needed it there is huge potential with shirt sponsorship.
No. we're not and will never be Man Utd but we can and will improve.
Imagine you were a banker, looking for work, and all the banks rejected you on the basis that the Bank of England had decreed they were only allowed to hire new bankers in certain months of the year?
Or imagine being a bank, desperately in need of more staff, but can't employ anyone for 4 months.
It's ridiculous when you apply the rule to anything other than football. Why is football so different to every other industry?
The players haven't kicked up too much of a fuss because they've just insisted their contracts run window to window, but I've no idea why no club as challenged the whole transfer window system. There will come a Bosman moment when a club desperately in need of extra players (like Liverpool this season) or desperately in need of the cash from a player sale (like at least a dozen clubs at any one given time) will challenge the transfer window system, and they'll win.
Not sure about that. So no transfer window affecting L1&2 so they can keep smaller squads and add should they need to from other L1&2 clubs, who are also keeping smaller squads? My logical thinking says that doesn't quite compute!
The wage cap in L1 was totally unfair and I am glad it has gone, Charlton are one of the biggest clubs with a rich owner and should be able to spend their way out.
The Championship however needs a wage cap, clubs are totally irresponsible with their money and owners throw money at clubs whom are spending beyond their means. When we get back there I hope there is a wage cap that brings all clubs ability to over spend in cheque and gives us more chance of competing against those clubs with bigger income and richer owners, especially given TS will be poor in comparative standards.
while enjoying the pint
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56666478