There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
Hi Airman over the many years I have always respected your opinion and i hope this isn’t too direct. Do you have a view on where you think we are now with TS?
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
Hi Airman over the many years I have always respected your opinion and i hope this isn’t too direct. Do you have a view on where you think we are now with TS?
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
Hi Airman over the many years I have always respected your opinion and i hope this isn’t too direct. Do you have a view on where you think we are now with TS?
We're better off than we were under RD, but that's a pretty low bar to be honest. I've no desire to be negative about TS, he was honest enough last night, but right now I'm not seeing a lot that encourages me to think the club will re-establish itself in the Championship under him in the near future. Just my opinion.
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
Hi Airman over the many years I have always respected your opinion and i hope this isn’t too direct. Do you have a view on where you think we are now with TS?
We're better off than we were under RD, but that's a pretty low bar to be honest. I've no desire to be negative about TS, he was honest enough last night, but right now I'm not seeing a lot that encourages me to think the club will re-establish itself in the Championship under him in the near future. Just my opinion.
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
Hi Airman over the many years I have always respected your opinion and i hope this isn’t too direct. Do you have a view on where you think we are now with TS?
We're better off than we were under RD, but that's a pretty low bar to be honest. I've no desire to be negative about TS, he was honest enough last night, but right now I'm not seeing a lot that encourages me to think the club will re-establish itself in the Championship under him in the near future. Just my opinion.
My opinion too, I am buckling up for a few more seasons in League One.
TS said that that split into two categories: clubs like Gillingham and Oxford which have low operating costs, but don’t have the ability to make much revenue; and clubs like Brentford which had focused on player development. He said that Charlton are starting to bring in individual coaches to help players break through with their careers. He said that Brentford didn’t really have an academy, and that he is doing the opposite because “we have an amazing foundation with one of the best academies in the country”. TS continued that he was continuing to develop the player side and focus on buying and seller in a better way than we have done in the past. In terms of being financially prudent, we can’t be like Gillingham, because we have a huge fanbase which we can mobilise. “Hopefully long term we’ll make a profit due to smart player trades.” (So we can be like Brentford ... but not like Brentford).
HA asked how he expects it to pan out for next season. TS said that the club is trying to be more consistent in getting good football players rather than just those who are good at getting the long balls (What?). He said that we will continue to build a squad that could do well at Championship level. TS said that we made some improvements in the midfield, but he’s looking to make more. He said that that will always be his key focus. He said that if George Dobson had better players around him, he could play at Premier League level. “I’m going to focus a lot on the attacking midfielder, and also players who can get the ball up (What?).” TS also mentioned Ryan Innis being out with injuries, and that we need to make improvements at the back. He said that there will be a minimum of a couple of players who will give us a significant boost.
TS said it comes back to his strategy for the business side, which is to increase revenues. “I have a strong belief that we can increase sponsorship revenues and ticket sales, get more food and drink sales, and increase hospitality sales.” He said that he is willing to make the investment in not necessarily seeing bigger short-term revenues, but first and foremost getting every seat filled. He said that if a sponsor sees a full stadium, it’s more likely they’ll be willing to get involved. “That’s where it all starts. (Umm ... no, Thomas. It starts with a decent team)” TS said he has tested a number of things, including things we may not have noticed, and some have worked and others haven’t. He said people have been handing out tickets at events at the O2, but hardly any of those were used. TS said that giving season ticket holders the ability to bring three friends was initially very popular but dropped off. He also mentioned initiatives with grassroots football clubs and schools in the area, which he said has some momentum. TS also mentioned an initiative with the University of Greenwich, but said there seemed to be absolutely no interest there in them coming to football games (So, actually ... none of them have worked, have they, Thomas?). TS said the club is using consultants on this. “I’m not letting up until that stadium is full. Period.” (Then you might want to prioritise on a decent team. No charge, no consultant's fee ... you can have that one for free, Thomas).
Related to that, HA said that people are questioning the value for money with their season tickets due to the free tickets available. She asked what TS’s strategy for season tickets is for next season. TS said he intends to put a good effort into ensuring the club has as many season ticket holders as possible. We have a little over 10,000 season ticket holders at the moment, and TS wants to continue to build on that figure. “That’s the basis of how we grow our club. We want to make sure that they get as much attention as possible, and we serve them as well as we possibly can.” TS said that, in parallel with that, we need to bring more people into the stadium, which might include people who have never seen a football game before, or never seen a Charlton game before. He mentioned that we have never really extended our reach beyond Greenwich, which we need to do, because there are fans all over London, and all over England. TS said that South London will get a lot more attention. (Yes, they'll just come flying in from (insert place with no easy access to a professional football team) to see us lose at home to Oxford).
HA picked back up on the player interactions. TS said he’s looking at a structured process for signatures and meeting players, and a system that the players know. He said it’s a big part of the experience. “I want the overall experience, from when someone leaves home to when they get back, to be as great as it can be.” (Start with the result on the pitch, Thomas. No charge).
Tom and Rosh asked whether TS has considered some friendly investors to share the load. TS said that he had not at this time, and that it’s probably not necessary. One possibility is a potential acquisition of the Valley and the training ground, but it might make more business sense to have some friendly real estate investors. He said that it might also be that we end up in “that weird place in the Championship where it would take a long time and a lot of money to get into the Premier League”. He said that he thinks he can avoid that by “just being smarter about how we run this business.” (That's great news because no investor will be remotely interested, Thomas. You have nothing but debt and running costs to sell).
Mike asked what went wrong in last summer’s transfer window. TS said that one of two agents “really managed to screw up two main targets for us”. He said that “when you literally have a deal in place and you see them being shopped around other clubs, that’s very frustrating.” TS said that, other than that, he thinks we got a good start on building the club we want for the future. We brought in several young, hungry players who will continue to improve. “I don’t think we got a whole lot wrong. We missed out on a few opportunities. Realistically, you should probably expect that, but I’m very competitive.” (So why are we currently 16th in League 1, Thomas? Maybe we got a lot wrong ... or does 'very competitive' mean OK with mid-table?).
I could go on, but it hurts me to do so.
The man is a half-wit.
That makes depressing reading, he really doesn't have a clue does he ?
I don’t think it is TS that is clueless.
The difference being I'm not trying to run a football club & if I was, as I have no prior experience I would bring in somebody who knew what they were doing to give guidance if nothing else. I certainly wouldn't bring in my equally inexperienced son who I've known for a few years (is he adopted?) as a director of recruitment analysis. Running a football club is easy? So why are we sitting in an uncomfortable 16th with continuing plunging gates even with giving away thousands of free tickets. Give me a shout this time next year, let's see where we are.
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
Hi Airman over the many years I have always respected your opinion and i hope this isn’t too direct. Do you have a view on where you think we are now with TS?
“S said that, in parallel with that, we need to bring more people into the stadium, which might include people who have never seen a football game before, or never seen a Charlton game before. He mentioned that we have never really extended our reach beyond Greenwich, which we need to do, because there are fans all over London, and all over England. TS said that South London will get a lot more attention.”
This, as every Charlton fan knows, would be complete tosh, although I think he qualified it with “in recent years”, which is closer to the truth. Greenwich is about 20% of season-ticket holders and a huge amount of work was done outside the borough over two decades by both club and fans.
The fact “there are fans all over London” is a red herring. There will be relatively few fans in London outside of the SE London boroughs/DA postcodes who don’t have roots in the latter area. There is way too much competition and noise to get any traction elsewhere in London and transport links are a significant factor too.
Charlton have badly neglected Kent (and part of East Sussex) in recent years and the sensible thing is to promote support where there is a Valley Express infrastructure to underpin it. This extended to schools and football teams on a large scale in the past but that work, which yielded new people still going today, has been largely abandoned.
it’s not the only thing that works and different strategies are needed locally but you are not going to redraw the map of London by giving free tickets away in areas that do not identify with Charlton at all, as is happening at present. It’s not how London works.
I live near Clapham Common and I can get to the Valley in about an hour and a half, whether by car or public transport. Have taken friends to matches, and they enjoyed the experience, but they’re not Charlton fans and are unlikely to repeat the experience because of the three hours travelling. Wimbledon is a five to ten minute drive away and Chelsea and Fulham are also pretty close.
An hour and a half?! Do you drive the Larkfield coach?
TS said that that split into two categories: clubs like Gillingham and Oxford which have low operating costs, but don’t have the ability to make much revenue; and clubs like Brentford which had focused on player development. He said that Charlton are starting to bring in individual coaches to help players break through with their careers. He said that Brentford didn’t really have an academy, and that he is doing the opposite because “we have an amazing foundation with one of the best academies in the country”. TS continued that he was continuing to develop the player side and focus on buying and seller in a better way than we have done in the past. In terms of being financially prudent, we can’t be like Gillingham, because we have a huge fanbase which we can mobilise. “Hopefully long term we’ll make a profit due to smart player trades.” (So we can be like Brentford ... but not like Brentford).
HA asked how he expects it to pan out for next season. TS said that the club is trying to be more consistent in getting good football players rather than just those who are good at getting the long balls (What?). He said that we will continue to build a squad that could do well at Championship level. TS said that we made some improvements in the midfield, but he’s looking to make more. He said that that will always be his key focus. He said that if George Dobson had better players around him, he could play at Premier League level. “I’m going to focus a lot on the attacking midfielder, and also players who can get the ball up (What?).” TS also mentioned Ryan Innis being out with injuries, and that we need to make improvements at the back. He said that there will be a minimum of a couple of players who will give us a significant boost.
TS said it comes back to his strategy for the business side, which is to increase revenues. “I have a strong belief that we can increase sponsorship revenues and ticket sales, get more food and drink sales, and increase hospitality sales.” He said that he is willing to make the investment in not necessarily seeing bigger short-term revenues, but first and foremost getting every seat filled. He said that if a sponsor sees a full stadium, it’s more likely they’ll be willing to get involved. “That’s where it all starts. (Umm ... no, Thomas. It starts with a decent team)” TS said he has tested a number of things, including things we may not have noticed, and some have worked and others haven’t. He said people have been handing out tickets at events at the O2, but hardly any of those were used. TS said that giving season ticket holders the ability to bring three friends was initially very popular but dropped off. He also mentioned initiatives with grassroots football clubs and schools in the area, which he said has some momentum. TS also mentioned an initiative with the University of Greenwich, but said there seemed to be absolutely no interest there in them coming to football games (So, actually ... none of them have worked, have they, Thomas?). TS said the club is using consultants on this. “I’m not letting up until that stadium is full. Period.” (Then you might want to prioritise on a decent team. No charge, no consultant's fee ... you can have that one for free, Thomas).
Related to that, HA said that people are questioning the value for money with their season tickets due to the free tickets available. She asked what TS’s strategy for season tickets is for next season. TS said he intends to put a good effort into ensuring the club has as many season ticket holders as possible. We have a little over 10,000 season ticket holders at the moment, and TS wants to continue to build on that figure. “That’s the basis of how we grow our club. We want to make sure that they get as much attention as possible, and we serve them as well as we possibly can.” TS said that, in parallel with that, we need to bring more people into the stadium, which might include people who have never seen a football game before, or never seen a Charlton game before. He mentioned that we have never really extended our reach beyond Greenwich, which we need to do, because there are fans all over London, and all over England. TS said that South London will get a lot more attention. (Yes, they'll just come flying in from (insert place with no easy access to a professional football team) to see us lose at home to Oxford).
HA picked back up on the player interactions. TS said he’s looking at a structured process for signatures and meeting players, and a system that the players know. He said it’s a big part of the experience. “I want the overall experience, from when someone leaves home to when they get back, to be as great as it can be.” (Start with the result on the pitch, Thomas. No charge).
Tom and Rosh asked whether TS has considered some friendly investors to share the load. TS said that he had not at this time, and that it’s probably not necessary. One possibility is a potential acquisition of the Valley and the training ground, but it might make more business sense to have some friendly real estate investors. He said that it might also be that we end up in “that weird place in the Championship where it would take a long time and a lot of money to get into the Premier League”. He said that he thinks he can avoid that by “just being smarter about how we run this business.” (That's great news because no investor will be remotely interested, Thomas. You have nothing but debt and running costs to sell).
Mike asked what went wrong in last summer’s transfer window. TS said that one of two agents “really managed to screw up two main targets for us”. He said that “when you literally have a deal in place and you see them being shopped around other clubs, that’s very frustrating.” TS said that, other than that, he thinks we got a good start on building the club we want for the future. We brought in several young, hungry players who will continue to improve. “I don’t think we got a whole lot wrong. We missed out on a few opportunities. Realistically, you should probably expect that, but I’m very competitive.” (So why are we currently 16th in League 1, Thomas? Maybe we got a lot wrong ... or does 'very competitive' mean OK with mid-table?).
I could go on, but it hurts me to do so.
The man is a half-wit.
That makes depressing reading, he really doesn't have a clue does he ?
I don’t think it is TS that is clueless.
The difference being I'm not trying to run a football club & if I was, as I have no prior experience I would bring in somebody who knew what they were doing to give guidance if nothing else. I certainly wouldn't bring in my equally inexperienced son who I've known for a few years (is he adopted?) as a director of recruitment analysis. Running a football club is easy? So why are we sitting in an uncomfortable 16th with continuing plunging gates even with giving away thousands of free tickets. Give me a shout this time next year, let's see where we are.
Where you on the call?
No
Pity, you may have been happier.
His son is not inexperienced for the role that he has been bought in to do. How do you reach that conclusion and what skills and qualifications do you think is needed? Personally I think it highly unlikely that a football person exists that has those skills and experience.
As for a football experience, wasn’t Ged that guy? That turned out well.
“S said that, in parallel with that, we need to bring more people into the stadium, which might include people who have never seen a football game before, or never seen a Charlton game before. He mentioned that we have never really extended our reach beyond Greenwich, which we need to do, because there are fans all over London, and all over England. TS said that South London will get a lot more attention.”
This, as every Charlton fan knows, would be complete tosh, although I think he qualified it with “in recent years”, which is closer to the truth. Greenwich is about 20% of season-ticket holders and a huge amount of work was done outside the borough over two decades by both club and fans.
The fact “there are fans all over London” is a red herring. There will be relatively few fans in London outside of the SE London boroughs/DA postcodes who don’t have roots in the latter area. There is way too much competition and noise to get any traction elsewhere in London and transport links are a significant factor too.
Charlton have badly neglected Kent (and part of East Sussex) in recent years and the sensible thing is to promote support where there is a Valley Express infrastructure to underpin it. This extended to schools and football teams on a large scale in the past but that work, which yielded new people still going today, has been largely abandoned.
it’s not the only thing that works and different strategies are needed locally but you are not going to redraw the map of London by giving free tickets away in areas that do not identify with Charlton at all, as is happening at present. It’s not how London works.
I live near Clapham Common and I can get to the Valley in about an hour and a half, whether by car or public transport. Have taken friends to matches, and they enjoyed the experience, but they’re not Charlton fans and are unlikely to repeat the experience because of the three hours travelling. Wimbledon is a five to ten minute drive away and Chelsea and Fulham are also pretty close.
An hour and a half?! Do you drive the Larkfield coach?
This is for Tuesday matches. Google tends to estimate 1 hour 10 mins but it always seems to be 1’20, and then, by the time I’ve parked and walked to the ground, it’s about 1:30 door to door.
Did it much quicker for a bank holiday match though. It’s only 8.6 miles ffs. Prefer the train.
I assume he talks openly and freely and off the cuff and hasn’t necessarily undertaken a detailed analysis that he’s double checked with anyone.
Isn’t he just trying to say he thinks / wants to do it his way and doesn’t necessarily need (on the non football side) anyone else yet. He sees it as as a manageable sized business he can get his arms around. He broadly assumed I think that in the past maybe it wasn’t run as efficiently as it can be. Most people think they can do it better or know something others have ignored etc. it’s just his optimism. It may well be naive but it’s not malicious.
As he is bankrolling off he is maybe too keen to get into the football side but that’s his prerogative until he pisses off the team or loses interest.
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
I don't find him saying "We’re definitely not going to be another Derby" offensive. I'd be more concerned if he said I want us to emulate Derby's financial strategy.
It's hard to see last summer's recruitment as a triumph of building for the future when - Charlie Kirk, who got loaned out after a few months was given a 4 year contract - George Dobson (who Thomas was praising as someone who could go all the way) was given a 2 year contract
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
I don't find him saying "We’re definitely not going to be another Derby" offensive. I'd be more concerned if he said I want us to emulate Derby's financial strategy.
What he said on BBC London was this: "The owners for the past couple of decades actually managed to whack up a net loss of £100m and eventually ended up having to sell to someone like Roland Duchatalet. To me that is a similar scenario to what we are experiencing up in Derby."
The club had very little debt when it was sold to the Spivs in December 2010 - an outstanding bank debt of circa £7m and the £7m ex-director loans repayable only in the Premier League. The Spivs pushed the debt up a bit over their three years, but some of that was transferring the bank loan from one lender to another.
So in what sense was the club sold to Roland because of previous accumulated losses over two decades? The crisis from 2008 onwards was caused by failure on the pitch and a falling-out among the board. But they did not leave the club in the shit financially.
It wasn't even sold to RD by the Premier League board and whatever view you take of their stewardship of the club or what it lost, they did not leave it loaded with debt at all. So again, how is it "a similar scenario" to Derby? Sandgaard is talking nonsense.
Thomas talks about increased food and drink sales,well he might want to look at the prices.e.g.the kebab shop corner of Floyd Road charges 1.80 for a good portion of chips,Shop in the Village similar,both shops mobbed,Chips in the ground 3.50 and basically crap,few buyers,outlandish prices for bottled water,and other soft drinks and sweets,people will always buy outside rather than pay.Van directly outside the north stand,hot chocolate 1.00,need I go on.
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
Hi Airman over the many years I have always respected your opinion and i hope this isn’t too direct. Do you have a view on where you think we are now with TS?
Prize for the most polite question on CL. Showing us how it should be done. 🙂
"we need to bring more people into the stadium, which might include people who have never seen a football game before, or never seen a Charlton game before. He mentioned that we have never really extended our reach beyond Greenwich, which we need to do, because there are fans all over London, and all over England"
I admire his optimism but as is fairly obvious, this simply isn't going to happen unless we're promoted.
In my years as Chair of NWKA, there was a season ( maybe two) when the Group was given 20 or so matchday tickets for each home game.
The idea was that we could offer them to members of the Branch to identify friends/work or school colleagues/family etc who hadn't caught the Addick bug thus far & to invite them to attend said match.
This was fairly easy to do & as a result, we "converted" quite a few attendees into becoming regulars & even season ticket holders.
You could say that this bears little difference to giving out free tickets willy nilly but we DID record & pass onto the club the details of those who accepted the "challenge" so that they could receive mail shots, season ticket application forms , special offers etc in the future. In other words, they were not lost by virtue of being " on the system".
As a Group, we also had a presence outside local rail stations ( Dartford & Gravesend) during evening rush hour, in the local shopping centre & similar venues when there was a Kid for a Quid type of promotion, giving out leaflets produced by the club to advertise outside of the club's vicinity - hence attracting or at least offering those living further afield which is something that TS wants to do.
With the demise of the majority of SGs over the years, this kind of initiative might be more difficult to put into practice now but isn't that where Addicks come to the fore ( or they used to !) by offering their services ?
Plenty of us have done so in the past, including helping the club by cleaning seats before the start of a new season, but maybe Thomas feels he can do it all on his own....
Thomas talks about increased food and drink sales,well he might want to look at the prices.e.g.the kebab shop corner of Floyd Road charges 1.80 for a good portion of chips,Shop in the Village similar,both shops mobbed,Chips in the ground 3.50 and basically crap,few buyers,outlandish prices for bottled water,and other soft drinks and sweets,people will always buy outside rather than pay.Van directly outside the north stand,hot chocolate 1.00,need I go on.
The problem he has is that currently the food outlets are not run by the club and we just get a %. A Club will struggle to compete only being open for a couple of hours every fortnight. However, other clubs do put on some real tasty foods and great prices. IMO we need a special we can push and get a name for. Curry and rice or a kebab for instance.
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
Hi Airman over the many years I have always respected your opinion and i hope this isn’t too direct. Do you have a view on where you think we are now with TS?
We're better off than we were under RD, but that's a pretty low bar to be honest. I've no desire to be negative about TS, he was honest enough last night, but right now I'm not seeing a lot that encourages me to think the club will re-establish itself in the Championship under him in the near future. Just my opinion.
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
I don't find him saying "We’re definitely not going to be another Derby" offensive. I'd be more concerned if he said I want us to emulate Derby's financial strategy.
What he said on BBC London was this: "The owners for the past couple of decades actually managed to whack up a net loss of £100m and eventually ended up having to sell to someone like Roland Duchatalet. To me that is a similar scenario to what we are experiencing up in Derby."
The club had very little debt when it was sold to the Spivs in December 2010 - an outstanding bank debt of circa £7m and the £7m ex-director loans repayable only in the Premier League. The Spivs pushed the debt up a bit over their three years, but some of that was transferring the bank loan from one lender to another.
So in what sense was the club sold to Roland because of previous accumulated losses over two decades? The crisis from 2008 onwards was caused by failure on the pitch and a falling-out among the board. But they did not leave the club in the shit financially.
It wasn't even sold to RD by the Premier League board and whatever view you take of their stewardship of the club or what it lost, they did not leave it loaded with debt at all. So again, how is it "a similar scenario" to Derby? Sandgaard is talking nonsense.
I checked the wording according to the Trust before I made the comment and either they are not quoting accurately or you are not quoting accurately.
"TS said he had been very fortunate with the business he had built in the US, and that there wouldn’t be a limit as to how much money he has available to invest in the club. He said that was the good news. It is also a business, though, and he said he wants to get closer to a position where the club is breaking even as soon as possible. He said there are questions about why it was sold to Roland, and why Roland was able to sell it for £1. He said that the club, before Roland, had had an operating loss of £100m, and that he was definitely not going to run the club like that. “Whatever those people did was over the top and irresponsible.” We’re definitely not going to be another Derby."
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
I don't find him saying "We’re definitely not going to be another Derby" offensive. I'd be more concerned if he said I want us to emulate Derby's financial strategy.
What he said on BBC London was this: "The owners for the past couple of decades actually managed to whack up a net loss of £100m and eventually ended up having to sell to someone like Roland Duchatalet. To me that is a similar scenario to what we are experiencing up in Derby."
The club had very little debt when it was sold to the Spivs in December 2010 - an outstanding bank debt of circa £7m and the £7m ex-director loans repayable only in the Premier League. The Spivs pushed the debt up a bit over their three years, but some of that was transferring the bank loan from one lender to another.
So in what sense was the club sold to Roland because of previous accumulated losses over two decades? The crisis from 2008 onwards was caused by failure on the pitch and a falling-out among the board. But they did not leave the club in the shit financially.
It wasn't even sold to RD by the Premier League board and whatever view you take of their stewardship of the club or what it lost, they did not leave it loaded with debt at all. So again, how is it "a similar scenario" to Derby? Sandgaard is talking nonsense.
I checked the wording according to the Trust before I made the comment and either they are not quoting accurately or you are not quoting accurately.
"TS said he had been very fortunate with the business he had built in the US, and that there wouldn’t be a limit as to how much money he has available to invest in the club. He said that was the good news. It is also a business, though, and he said he wants to get closer to a position where the club is breaking even as soon as possible. He said there are questions about why it was sold to Roland, and why Roland was able to sell it for £1. He said that the club, before Roland, had had an operating loss of £100m, and that he was definitely not going to run the club like that. “Whatever those people did was over the top and irresponsible.” We’re definitely not going to be another Derby."
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
I don't find him saying "We’re definitely not going to be another Derby" offensive. I'd be more concerned if he said I want us to emulate Derby's financial strategy.
What he said on BBC London was this: "The owners for the past couple of decades actually managed to whack up a net loss of £100m and eventually ended up having to sell to someone like Roland Duchatalet. To me that is a similar scenario to what we are experiencing up in Derby."
The club had very little debt when it was sold to the Spivs in December 2010 - an outstanding bank debt of circa £7m and the £7m ex-director loans repayable only in the Premier League. The Spivs pushed the debt up a bit over their three years, but some of that was transferring the bank loan from one lender to another.
So in what sense was the club sold to Roland because of previous accumulated losses over two decades? The crisis from 2008 onwards was caused by failure on the pitch and a falling-out among the board. But they did not leave the club in the shit financially.
It wasn't even sold to RD by the Premier League board and whatever view you take of their stewardship of the club or what it lost, they did not leave it loaded with debt at all. So again, how is it "a similar scenario" to Derby? Sandgaard is talking nonsense.
I checked the wording according to the Trust before I made the comment and either they are not quoting accurately or you are not quoting accurately.
"TS said he had been very fortunate with the business he had built in the US, and that there wouldn’t be a limit as to how much money he has available to invest in the club. He said that was the good news. It is also a business, though, and he said he wants to get closer to a position where the club is breaking even as soon as possible. He said there are questions about why it was sold to Roland, and why Roland was able to sell it for £1. He said that the club, before Roland, had had an operating loss of £100m, and that he was definitely not going to run the club like that. “Whatever those people did was over the top and irresponsible.” We’re definitely not going to be another Derby."
"Whatever those people did", by the way, was rebuild The Valley, treble the crowds and give the club and fans eight years in the Premier League.
I suggest he achieves something himself before he calls them "over the top and irresponsible" and makes claims about the sale to RD - by another party entirely - that doesn't survive basic factual analysis.
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
I don't find him saying "We’re definitely not going to be another Derby" offensive. I'd be more concerned if he said I want us to emulate Derby's financial strategy.
What he said on BBC London was this: "The owners for the past couple of decades actually managed to whack up a net loss of £100m and eventually ended up having to sell to someone like Roland Duchatalet. To me that is a similar scenario to what we are experiencing up in Derby."
The club had very little debt when it was sold to the Spivs in December 2010 - an outstanding bank debt of circa £7m and the £7m ex-director loans repayable only in the Premier League. The Spivs pushed the debt up a bit over their three years, but some of that was transferring the bank loan from one lender to another.
So in what sense was the club sold to Roland because of previous accumulated losses over two decades? The crisis from 2008 onwards was caused by failure on the pitch and a falling-out among the board. But they did not leave the club in the shit financially.
It wasn't even sold to RD by the Premier League board and whatever view you take of their stewardship of the club or what it lost, they did not leave it loaded with debt at all. So again, how is it "a similar scenario" to Derby? Sandgaard is talking nonsense.
I checked the wording according to the Trust before I made the comment and either they are not quoting accurately or you are not quoting accurately.
"TS said he had been very fortunate with the business he had built in the US, and that there wouldn’t be a limit as to how much money he has available to invest in the club. He said that was the good news. It is also a business, though, and he said he wants to get closer to a position where the club is breaking even as soon as possible. He said there are questions about why it was sold to Roland, and why Roland was able to sell it for £1. He said that the club, before Roland, had had an operating loss of £100m, and that he was definitely not going to run the club like that. “Whatever those people did was over the top and irresponsible.” We’re definitely not going to be another Derby."
Thomas talks about increased food and drink sales,well he might want to look at the prices.e.g.the kebab shop corner of Floyd Road charges 1.80 for a good portion of chips,Shop in the Village similar,both shops mobbed,Chips in the ground 3.50 and basically crap,few buyers,outlandish prices for bottled water,and other soft drinks and sweets,people will always buy outside rather than pay.Van directly outside the north stand,hot chocolate 1.00,need I go on.
And the food outside the ground is served by speedy, competent staff, not the gormless numptys behind the bars at The Valley
There are a lot of positives about the 92 to 04 transformaiton, but there is a fair argument that the infrastructure of the club wasn't improved as revenue from TV money grew, be it the number of boxes at the Valley, no investment for example in the pitch, to the state of Sparrows Lane. I have a bit of sympathy for an argument that whilst the results on the pitch were good, the capital spend was done at the bottom of the market and hasn't set the club up well.
I agree with you that there are things the board could have done differently, including capital investment. I thought the boardroom extension was sheer indulgence, for example. But that's not where TS is going. He is saying that that the club shouldn't have lost the money it did (whatever we think that is) i.e. that the club should have generated more revenue or spent less. I think it's a very big stretch for him to come along and tell us that the club didn't do enough 20 years ago to exploit the situation commercially (higher ticket prices, for example) or should have spent less. How could he possibly understand the context?
In any event, the old board, whatever you make of it, took a big financial hit on the chin when the club was relegated. They did not leave the club with a pile of debt. The comparison with Derby's position is offensive.
I don't find him saying "We’re definitely not going to be another Derby" offensive. I'd be more concerned if he said I want us to emulate Derby's financial strategy.
What he said on BBC London was this: "The owners for the past couple of decades actually managed to whack up a net loss of £100m and eventually ended up having to sell to someone like Roland Duchatalet. To me that is a similar scenario to what we are experiencing up in Derby."
The club had very little debt when it was sold to the Spivs in December 2010 - an outstanding bank debt of circa £7m and the £7m ex-director loans repayable only in the Premier League. The Spivs pushed the debt up a bit over their three years, but some of that was transferring the bank loan from one lender to another.
So in what sense was the club sold to Roland because of previous accumulated losses over two decades? The crisis from 2008 onwards was caused by failure on the pitch and a falling-out among the board. But they did not leave the club in the shit financially.
It wasn't even sold to RD by the Premier League board and whatever view you take of their stewardship of the club or what it lost, they did not leave it loaded with debt at all. So again, how is it "a similar scenario" to Derby? Sandgaard is talking nonsense.
I checked the wording according to the Trust before I made the comment and either they are not quoting accurately or you are not quoting accurately.
"TS said he had been very fortunate with the business he had built in the US, and that there wouldn’t be a limit as to how much money he has available to invest in the club. He said that was the good news. It is also a business, though, and he said he wants to get closer to a position where the club is breaking even as soon as possible. He said there are questions about why it was sold to Roland, and why Roland was able to sell it for £1. He said that the club, before Roland, had had an operating loss of £100m, and that he was definitely not going to run the club like that. “Whatever those people did was over the top and irresponsible.” We’re definitely not going to be another Derby."
I am quoting directly from the recording of the BBC London interview.
That's where we differ then because this is not the discussion about the BBC London interview. This is the discusdion on what TS said at the Q&A.
In both he made a reference to Derby in relation to the old board. In the trust discussion, he called the old board irresponsible because they lost money (albeit less than he claims, especially as he ignores the Spivs). Had they tried to break even in the 1990s we'd never have rebuilt the ground or got promoted twice and we wouldn't have the crowds we have even now, which are a direct consequence of that.
Example: we lost money in the 1999/2000 promotion season, partially offset by selling Danny Mills. Would it have been better in the short, medium or long term to have cut the squad back more and not got promoted again that season, potentially missing out on seven more years PL income?
Both then and now, he is trying to ignore the context and pretend that one club can both defy the actual situation in the game and succeed while doing it, while at the same time he is pissing money up the wall himself. His justification, as I understand it, is that this is how he gets to break even in the medium term. Just maybe "those people" were trying to do the same thing?
"Whatever those people did", by the way, was rebuild The Valley, treble the crowds and give the club and fans eight years in the Premier League.
I suggest he achieves something himself before he calls them "over the top and irresponsible" and makes claims about the sale to RD - by another party entirely - that doesn't survive basic factual analysis.
I can't help but feel you are taking his comments a tad too personally, on others' behalf as well as your own. Perhaps a total misreading but there are plenty of people ready to jump if you tell them to do so. That concerns me if you are to become at odds with the owner of our football club.
I don't believe he's in the business of calling specific people out, that in itself would be bizarre. Trying to step into his shoes for a second, he comes into a business with millions of unsustainable debts on the books - I would immediately believe that business had been mismanaged for a number of years too. He has likely got his timelines all jumbled up but it's an honest mistake rather than an attempt to rubbish the club's success of the 90s and early 2000s.
Comments
His son is not inexperienced for the role that he has been bought in to do. How do you reach that conclusion and what skills and qualifications do you think is needed? Personally I think it highly unlikely that a football person exists that has those skills and experience.
As for a football experience, wasn’t Ged that guy? That turned out well.
Please give me a shout next year.
Prefer the train.
I'd be more concerned if he said I want us to emulate Derby's financial strategy.
- Charlie Kirk, who got loaned out after a few months was given a 4 year contract
- George Dobson (who Thomas was praising as someone who could go all the way) was given a 2 year contract
The club had very little debt when it was sold to the Spivs in December 2010 - an outstanding bank debt of circa £7m and the £7m ex-director loans repayable only in the Premier League. The Spivs pushed the debt up a bit over their three years, but some of that was transferring the bank loan from one lender to another.
So in what sense was the club sold to Roland because of previous accumulated losses over two decades? The crisis from 2008 onwards was caused by failure on the pitch and a falling-out among the board. But they did not leave the club in the shit financially.
It wasn't even sold to RD by the Premier League board and whatever view you take of their stewardship of the club or what it lost, they did not leave it loaded with debt at all. So again, how is it "a similar scenario" to Derby? Sandgaard is talking nonsense.
The idea was that we could offer them to members of the Branch to identify friends/work or school colleagues/family etc who hadn't caught the Addick bug thus far & to invite them to attend said match.
This was fairly easy to do & as a result, we "converted" quite a few attendees into becoming regulars & even season ticket holders.
You could say that this bears little difference to giving out free tickets willy nilly but we DID record & pass onto the club the details of those who accepted the "challenge" so that they could receive mail shots, season ticket application forms , special offers etc in the future. In other words, they were not lost by virtue of being " on the system".
As a Group, we also had a presence outside local rail stations ( Dartford & Gravesend) during evening rush hour, in the local shopping centre & similar venues when there was a Kid for a Quid type of promotion, giving out leaflets produced by the club to advertise outside of the club's vicinity - hence attracting or at least offering those living further afield which is something that TS wants to do.
With the demise of the majority of SGs over the years, this kind of initiative might be more difficult to put into practice now but isn't that where Addicks come to the fore ( or they used to !) by offering their services ?
Plenty of us have done so in the past, including helping the club by cleaning seats before the start of a new season, but maybe Thomas feels he can do it all on his own....
A Club will struggle to compete only being open for a couple of hours every fortnight. However, other clubs do put on some real tasty foods and great prices. IMO we need a special we can push and get a name for. Curry and rice or a kebab for instance.
Of Oxford and MK Dons...
"TS said he had been very fortunate with the business he had built in the US, and that there wouldn’t be a limit as to how much money he has available to invest in the club. He said that was the good news. It is also a business, though, and he said he wants to get closer to a position where the club is breaking even as soon as possible. He said there are questions about why it was sold to Roland, and why Roland was able to sell it for £1. He said that the club, before Roland, had had an operating loss of £100m, and that he was definitely not going to run the club like that. “Whatever those people did was over the top and irresponsible.” We’re definitely not going to be another Derby."
https://www.castrust.org/2022/03/thomas-i-am-still-as-ambitious-as-i-was-before-i-bought-the-club/
I suggest he achieves something himself before he calls them "over the top and irresponsible" and makes claims about the sale to RD - by another party entirely - that doesn't survive basic factual analysis.
This is the discussion on what TS said at the Q&A.
Example: we lost money in the 1999/2000 promotion season, partially offset by selling Danny Mills. Would it have been better in the short, medium or long term to have cut the squad back more and not got promoted again that season, potentially missing out on seven more years PL income?
Both then and now, he is trying to ignore the context and pretend that one club can both defy the actual situation in the game and succeed while doing it, while at the same time he is pissing money up the wall himself. His justification, as I understand it, is that this is how he gets to break even in the medium term. Just maybe "those people" were trying to do the same thing?
I don't believe he's in the business of calling specific people out, that in itself would be bizarre. Trying to step into his shoes for a second, he comes into a business with millions of unsustainable debts on the books - I would immediately believe that business had been mismanaged for a number of years too. He has likely got his timelines all jumbled up but it's an honest mistake rather than an attempt to rubbish the club's success of the 90s and early 2000s.