Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlie Methven: Global Football Partners have no plans to ‘flip’ Charlton Athletic
Comments
-
This is true. It was very hard to get people to come from 2008 onwards, although in the 90s it wasn’t primarily about the football. There was a strong narrative around the return and improvements to the facilities. Gates went up regardless of results. Fans were heavily engaged in this.MuttleyCAFC said:It is true that the biggest driver is the product. Basically a succesful team. Airman and the club did a great job boosting the support in the past but it couldn't have been done with the sort of performances we have delivered over the past decade. There has to be a wave to ride.
The club currently lacks any coherent narrative about its future and the lack of identity with its history within the management and ownership is part of the reason for that. New times, new methods, but the 90s board were in it heart and soul and no one doubted it. That was one reason they got so much buy in.
This doesn’t of itself make the current regime bad people, it’s just a handicap, but this season it’s all about promotion. I have listened to different people talking about tapping into the local market better for years, including a lot of guff about the population growth in the Thames Gateway as an opportunity, but houses and flats don’t attend matches.
We need a narrative that is about the club and rooted in its identity and strengths - and a better product.
22 -
So the infrastructure stuff you allude to is as you say within the operating costs / losses. I agree.Henry Irving said:
Not really.valleynick66 said:
Difference between undisclosed and a ‘caveated’ figure in my view.cafcfan said:
Well, the actual deal has to be lodged with the EFL.valleynick66 said:
Agreed. But I don’t really know why as I’ve understood it’s an open secret within football circles and it’s only the fans who have to fill in the blanks.Scoham said:
No don’t think so, but we’ve been doing it consistently since the Slater/Jimenez years and the majority of other clubs do the same.valleynick66 said:Did he comment on why transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’ yet happy to share how much money we lose?Just curious as to me it is a barometer of true cash investment.
Aside from that I suspect the complexities make most deals almost unfathomable in terms of cash paid. And any headline fee would be likely to be as accurate as a political party's election manifesto. There's so many clauses, matches played, promotion achieved, goals scored, international appearances, phased payments over the period of a contract and sell-on clauses.
Then should you also include release clauses, buy-out clauses, image rights clauses, signing-on bonuses, loyalty bonuses, etc, that feature as part of a player's contract?
Just as an example, Martial from AS Monaco to Man Utd back in 2015:
A headline fee of €50mn, to be paid in two installments of €20mn up front and €30mn the following year. Plus €10mn if he scored 25 goals during the period of his contract; €10mn if he played 25 games for France; and €10mn if he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or plus other clauses in the event of his onward sale for a fee between €60mn and €100mn meaning Monaco got 50% of the difference.
Edited to add: Martial still hasn't got a club, if we're interested.Still think it shows true investment if more details are shared.
Investment isn't just player fees.
Wages, infrastructure, non-playing staff
Eventually the investment ie losses are shown in the accounts anyway.
And as has been said if it has been agreed between the two clubs that it is not to be revealed it would be damaging to do so.That is hidden to some extent by the constant restructuring of staffing / outsourcing etc. Also when its staff it can relatively quickly be reversed subject to redundancies etc.
We also know the ‘pitch’ spend for us was mostly from a grant.I’m merely making the point that confirmed player spend is a more tangible figure to observe.I don’t agree it’s ‘damaging’ to know the transfer fees as I understand these things are well understood within and between football clubs. But I may be wrong.Do you know for sure fees are not really known by any clubs outside of the 2 directly involved in a transfer? Otherwise how do we know we have the 4th biggest budget etc?0 -
I do think one issue is going to be local fans moving further and further away as the area gets more expensive. It’s why I’m not local anymore and why I can’t get to many games, I won’t be alone in that1
-
Make it cheaper / more affordable.cafcfan said:I'll try to keep this short. Last season I brought a friend to a game. She was born in Vietnam but came to the UK when she was 7 - she's now 46. She lives in Woolwich but had never been to a game before. It was a mid-week game as she works on Saturdays. Her enthusiasm for what I thought was a pile of crap was quite remarkable - she really should have been in the upper tier of the Covered End. She would clearly enjoy attending more games with her family. But her husband too works Saturdays. I suspect she would find the cost of match tickets prohibitive as well.
So, my question, would we get more local, new supporters if we followed the example of the NFL and played most games on Sundays?That’s the uncomfortable truth for our owners. If we get back to the promised land then put the prices up / in line with the market but shorter term make it viable for more.1 -
Fair point. Guess my dislike for the bloke got the better of me.Gribbo said:
It doesn't have to be one or the other though does it. You tell someone you think they're being patronising without calling them a c***Return of the SE7 said:I do apologise. I didn't realise that calling someone a patronising cnut undermined the investment in the team. In future I'll be very complimentary and issue plaudits which should sustain us beyond Christmas and boost our push for promotion.
Got any new jokes?1 -
Trumpeted by Waggott but Varney was also a big believer.Airman Brown said:
This is true. It was very hard to get people to come from 2008 onwards, although in the 90s it wasn’t primarily about the football. There was a strong narrative around the return and improvements to the facilities. Gates went up regardless of results. Fans were heavily engaged in this.MuttleyCAFC said:It is true that the biggest driver is the product. Basically a succesful team. Airman and the club did a great job boosting the support in the past but it couldn't have been done with the sort of performances we have delivered over the past decade. There has to be a wave to ride.
The club currently lacks any coherent narrative about its future and the lack of identity with its history within the management and ownership is part of the reason for that. New times, new methods, but the 90s board were in it heart and soul and no one doubted it. That was one reason they got so much buy in.
This doesn’t of itself make the current regime bad people, it’s just a handicap, but this season it’s all about promotion. I have listened to different people talking about tapping into the local market better for years, including a lot of guff about the population growth in the Thames Gateway as an opportunity, but houses and flats don’t attend matches.
We need a narrative that is about the club and rooted in its identity and strengths - and a better product.0 -
Because the budgets are submitted to the EFL and shared across the clubs in that divisionvalleynick66 said:
So the infrastructure stuff you allude to is as you say within the operating costs / losses. I agree.Henry Irving said:
Not really.valleynick66 said:
Difference between undisclosed and a ‘caveated’ figure in my view.cafcfan said:
Well, the actual deal has to be lodged with the EFL.valleynick66 said:
Agreed. But I don’t really know why as I’ve understood it’s an open secret within football circles and it’s only the fans who have to fill in the blanks.Scoham said:
No don’t think so, but we’ve been doing it consistently since the Slater/Jimenez years and the majority of other clubs do the same.valleynick66 said:Did he comment on why transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’ yet happy to share how much money we lose?Just curious as to me it is a barometer of true cash investment.
Aside from that I suspect the complexities make most deals almost unfathomable in terms of cash paid. And any headline fee would be likely to be as accurate as a political party's election manifesto. There's so many clauses, matches played, promotion achieved, goals scored, international appearances, phased payments over the period of a contract and sell-on clauses.
Then should you also include release clauses, buy-out clauses, image rights clauses, signing-on bonuses, loyalty bonuses, etc, that feature as part of a player's contract?
Just as an example, Martial from AS Monaco to Man Utd back in 2015:
A headline fee of €50mn, to be paid in two installments of €20mn up front and €30mn the following year. Plus €10mn if he scored 25 goals during the period of his contract; €10mn if he played 25 games for France; and €10mn if he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or plus other clauses in the event of his onward sale for a fee between €60mn and €100mn meaning Monaco got 50% of the difference.
Edited to add: Martial still hasn't got a club, if we're interested.Still think it shows true investment if more details are shared.
Investment isn't just player fees.
Wages, infrastructure, non-playing staff
Eventually the investment ie losses are shown in the accounts anyway.
And as has been said if it has been agreed between the two clubs that it is not to be revealed it would be damaging to do so.That is hidden to some extent by the constant restructuring of staffing / outsourcing etc. Also when its staff it can relatively quickly be reversed subject to redundancies etc.
We also know the ‘pitch’ spend for us was mostly from a grant.I’m merely making the point that confirmed player spend is a more tangible figure to observe.I don’t agree it’s ‘damaging’ to know the transfer fees as I understand these things are well understood within and between football clubs. But I may be wrong.Do you know for sure fees are not really known by any clubs outside of the 2 directly involved in a transfer? Otherwise how do we know we have the 4th biggest budget etc?0 -
What is shared ?Henry Irving said:
Because the budgets are submitted to the EFL and shared across the clubs in that divisionvalleynick66 said:
So the infrastructure stuff you allude to is as you say within the operating costs / losses. I agree.Henry Irving said:
Not really.valleynick66 said:
Difference between undisclosed and a ‘caveated’ figure in my view.cafcfan said:
Well, the actual deal has to be lodged with the EFL.valleynick66 said:
Agreed. But I don’t really know why as I’ve understood it’s an open secret within football circles and it’s only the fans who have to fill in the blanks.Scoham said:
No don’t think so, but we’ve been doing it consistently since the Slater/Jimenez years and the majority of other clubs do the same.valleynick66 said:Did he comment on why transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’ yet happy to share how much money we lose?Just curious as to me it is a barometer of true cash investment.
Aside from that I suspect the complexities make most deals almost unfathomable in terms of cash paid. And any headline fee would be likely to be as accurate as a political party's election manifesto. There's so many clauses, matches played, promotion achieved, goals scored, international appearances, phased payments over the period of a contract and sell-on clauses.
Then should you also include release clauses, buy-out clauses, image rights clauses, signing-on bonuses, loyalty bonuses, etc, that feature as part of a player's contract?
Just as an example, Martial from AS Monaco to Man Utd back in 2015:
A headline fee of €50mn, to be paid in two installments of €20mn up front and €30mn the following year. Plus €10mn if he scored 25 goals during the period of his contract; €10mn if he played 25 games for France; and €10mn if he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or plus other clauses in the event of his onward sale for a fee between €60mn and €100mn meaning Monaco got 50% of the difference.
Edited to add: Martial still hasn't got a club, if we're interested.Still think it shows true investment if more details are shared.
Investment isn't just player fees.
Wages, infrastructure, non-playing staff
Eventually the investment ie losses are shown in the accounts anyway.
And as has been said if it has been agreed between the two clubs that it is not to be revealed it would be damaging to do so.That is hidden to some extent by the constant restructuring of staffing / outsourcing etc. Also when its staff it can relatively quickly be reversed subject to redundancies etc.
We also know the ‘pitch’ spend for us was mostly from a grant.I’m merely making the point that confirmed player spend is a more tangible figure to observe.I don’t agree it’s ‘damaging’ to know the transfer fees as I understand these things are well understood within and between football clubs. But I may be wrong.Do you know for sure fees are not really known by any clubs outside of the 2 directly involved in a transfer? Otherwise how do we know we have the 4th biggest budget etc?The financial forecast or something else? Budget needs more definition for me to get the point you are making.0 -
That’s true and it’s something PV and I didn’t agree on. Waggott just repeated it.carly burn said:
Trumpeted by Waggott but Varney was also a big believer.Airman Brown said:
This is true. It was very hard to get people to come from 2008 onwards, although in the 90s it wasn’t primarily about the football. There was a strong narrative around the return and improvements to the facilities. Gates went up regardless of results. Fans were heavily engaged in this.MuttleyCAFC said:It is true that the biggest driver is the product. Basically a succesful team. Airman and the club did a great job boosting the support in the past but it couldn't have been done with the sort of performances we have delivered over the past decade. There has to be a wave to ride.
The club currently lacks any coherent narrative about its future and the lack of identity with its history within the management and ownership is part of the reason for that. New times, new methods, but the 90s board were in it heart and soul and no one doubted it. That was one reason they got so much buy in.
This doesn’t of itself make the current regime bad people, it’s just a handicap, but this season it’s all about promotion. I have listened to different people talking about tapping into the local market better for years, including a lot of guff about the population growth in the Thames Gateway as an opportunity, but houses and flats don’t attend matches.
We need a narrative that is about the club and rooted in its identity and strengths - and a better product.1 -
Err, who said anything about skin colour? Jeez, some people are clearly struggling to read on this thread today.sam3110 said:
Yeah, because all the local kids are black and carry knives don't they?Off_it said:If the idea is to encourage more local yoof to attend with "street football", does that mean we're going to have to install metal detectors or amnesty bins for the knives?
For clarity, in case you've missed it, there is a widely report issue with people - particularly young people - carrying knives across London.
In these circumstances I'd normally say to not worry about the apology, but in this particular case I look forward to receiving it.3 -
Sponsored links:
-
Well in my defence, this forum is full of thinly veiled racism as it is, and after other people mentioning black people being the local demographic, and how it differs to the attending demographic of our club, your comment on the back of it, about local youth all carrying knives and needing amnesty bins at The Valley, it isn't a massive stretch to connect the dots is it?13
-
Is it?sam3110 said:Well in my defence, this forum is full of thinly veiled racism as it is, and after other people mentioning black people being the local demographic, and how it differs to the attending demographic of our club, your comment on the back of it, about local youth all carrying knives and needing amnesty bins at The Valley, it isn't a massive stretch to connect the dots is it?
5 -
“full of”?sam3110 said:Well in my defence, this forum is full of thinly veiled racism as it is, and after other people mentioning black people being the local demographic, and how it differs to the attending demographic of our club, your comment on the back of it, about local youth all carrying knives and needing amnesty bins at The Valley, it isn't a massive stretch to connect the dots is it?5 -
Ewww1
-
Oh god0
-
LTKapal said:Braziliance said:Henry Irving made some really excellent points, and tbh, I think it's a lot harder than the people in charge realise to tap into the market of the surrounding areas.
The reality is, Charlton just isn't an easy team to support. I have a group of old mates who are a mixture of Somali, Pakistani and Kenyan, and they can't understand why I support Charlton. They have gone to games, and have all said that if we got to the Premier League, they'd get season tickets, but that's not to support Charlton, but rather see quality football.
People who have no family ties to Charlton, are a very hard sell for Charlton. We are arguably the most underachieving London professional football club at present (not even sure its an argument tbh) there's a real lack of interest in our level of football.
Just a point I'd like to question.
Based on listening to the whole thing Charlie makes a point that the gap between L1 and Champ is widening and there is a conscientious effort to boost prestige of the championship, with the new efl deal being with more than ligue 1 for example,
And moving towards an premier league 2 ( with it an ever increasing quality of football I'd imagine) but this is not new news.
He also mentioned sponsorship in this regard and how it's difficult for us to get people interested in L1 because of the prestige and quantity of other ports teams ( locally ie London ) I think there is clear thinking here in that regards.
Anyway, I digress, with that in mind surely then if we can get promoted and become an established champ team again would that not then begin to appeal to these types you mention?
On this basis surely they would have thrown the kitchen sink at going up, other than selling a player to finance our transfer dealings.
1 -
Of all the forums on the internet, I’d say this is one of the most accepting, understanding and least judgmental. To start projecting full of thinly veiled racism is a fucking joke.
Moronic. You got your likes tho.14 -
Radostanradical said:
No exactly that, you are right the point I'm making, maybe clumsily, is if a few (and there will always be some upset by any change) older fans get upset because the fanzone is too young, loud etc (also accepting as you said most dont care) the club is happy to make that trade off. Not to be seen as a whole exchange of older fans for younger fans.fenaddick said:
bang on the money until the very last bit in kyRadostanradical said:More to this i don't know how the "white" bit crept in but it obviously that the club is trying to attract a younger crowd, they literally created a section for 16-20 year olds. It makes sense from the club perspective to put effort in to attracting a younger crowd, those around 60 who attend arent likely to stop attending through choice but a significant amount probably wont be coming in ten, fifteen years time for a variety of reasons. It's not about not wanting a certain demographic as fans but attracting fans from other demographics and as a business if they fell there is more chance of making a profit from demographic A than B they will do so.
All this said its not that they wont older men as fans but more so they want to attract a younger fanbase who will spend money and if that means some of the older fans stop attending they are happy to make that trade off.
opinion. Don’t think they’re expecting the older fans to stop as nothing is being done to discourage them really, the fanzone doesn’t make a huge difference to older fans for example but is aimed at new younger fans
Whilst a good idea to bring fans to the games, I cannot imagine it being a success due to the weather.
0 -
👍👍👍ValleyGary said:Of all the forums on the internet, I’d say this is one of the most accepting, understanding and least judgmental. To start projecting full of thinly veiled racism is a fucking joke.
Moronic. You got your likes tho.0 -
fenaddick said:
bang on the money until the very last bit in kyRadostanradical said:More to this i don't know how the "white" bit crept in but it obviously that the club is trying to attract a younger crowd, they literally created a section for 16-20 year olds. It makes sense from the club perspective to put effort in to attracting a younger crowd, those around 60 who attend arent likely to stop attending through choice but a significant amount probably wont be coming in ten, fifteen years time for a variety of reasons. It's not about not wanting a certain demographic as fans but attracting fans from other demographics and as a business if they fell there is more chance of making a profit from demographic A than B they will do so.
All this said its not that they wont older men as fans but more so they want to attract a younger fanbase who will spend money and if that means some of the older fans stop attending they are happy to make that trade off.
opinion. Don’t think they’re expecting the older fans to stop as nothing is being done to discourage them really, the fanzone doesn’t make a huge difference to older fans for example but is aimed at new younger fans
Clubs need the older generations to still attend to bring in the youngsters and creating interest.
2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Of course, I just said they aren't doing anything to actively put off current older fansElfsborgAddick said:fenaddick said:
bang on the money until the very last bit in kyRadostanradical said:More to this i don't know how the "white" bit crept in but it obviously that the club is trying to attract a younger crowd, they literally created a section for 16-20 year olds. It makes sense from the club perspective to put effort in to attracting a younger crowd, those around 60 who attend arent likely to stop attending through choice but a significant amount probably wont be coming in ten, fifteen years time for a variety of reasons. It's not about not wanting a certain demographic as fans but attracting fans from other demographics and as a business if they fell there is more chance of making a profit from demographic A than B they will do so.
All this said its not that they wont older men as fans but more so they want to attract a younger fanbase who will spend money and if that means some of the older fans stop attending they are happy to make that trade off.
opinion. Don’t think they’re expecting the older fans to stop as nothing is being done to discourage them really, the fanzone doesn’t make a huge difference to older fans for example but is aimed at new younger fans
Clubs need the older generations to still attend to bring in the youngsters and creating interest.0 -
fenaddick said:I do think one issue is going to be local fans moving further and further away as the area gets more expensive. It’s why I’m not local anymore and why I can’t get to many games, I won’t be alone in that
This issue I would think is very small, Arsenal and Chelsea get capacity crowds and I would think supporters within a five mile radius of both grounds attending is not great.
1 -
The topic of discussion is clearly about race. Saying there is racism in this discussion is complete bollox.sam3110 said:Well in my defence, this forum is full of thinly veiled racism as it is, and after other people mentioning black people being the local demographic, and how it differs to the attending demographic of our club, your comment on the back of it, about local youth all carrying knives and needing amnesty bins at The Valley, it isn't a massive stretch to connect the dots is it?2 -
I mean, I can’t believe I’m bothering but.. to his point there was a weird tangent about whites not being welcome, and an odd comment about metal detectors and amnesty bins because of street football (discussed in the context of first/second generation citizens). So, his over-exaggeration is only matched by your exaggerated outrage.ValleyGary said:Of all the forums on the internet, I’d say this is one of the most accepting, understanding and least judgmental. To start projecting full of thinly veiled racism is a fucking joke.
Moronic. You got your likes tho.
Beddy-byes for me now.2 -
Arsenal and Chelsea are massive global brands, Charlton are not. They have PL football, we don't. They have global superstars, we don't. You're comparing apples and oranges.ElfsborgAddick said:fenaddick said:I do think one issue is going to be local fans moving further and further away as the area gets more expensive. It’s why I’m not local anymore and why I can’t get to many games, I won’t be alone in that
This issue I would think is very small, Arsenal and Chelsea get capacity crowds and I would think supporters within a five mile radius of both grounds attending is not great.0 -
What a depressing thread.
It seems like for some there's not much to complain about/disagree about on the start of the season.
So some want to row partly about what someone didn't say and then others also making up a number of untruths to add to it.
Ridiculous.6 -
A few years ago when I was on the Supporters Trust board I was able to visit Erik Samuelson the then CEO of AFC Wimbledon, a very good guy with a career at Deloitte behind him, to understand and write up their fan ownership model. He went into generous detail about their budgetting, and then explained that the EFL clubs had agreed to share a spreadsheet showing the budget each club had allocated to player remuneration for the season. As I recall, the figures were previous season actual. I was very pleasantly surprised to learn this. He turned his laptop towards me just long enough to see it existed but not long enough to absorb any figures, it being P&C of course. It allowed Erik (and the others) to set a wage budget which corresponded to a position in the league table they targetted to finish on, i.e. in their case, 4th lowest wage budget, and then their manager had a clear goal - finish 5th lowest (with a bonus for doing so,) and keeping them up. It is shared only by division, so some guesswork is needed regarding relegated and promoted clubs, but it is official and a surprising example of how EFL clubs can work in the collective interest if they put their minds to it.valleynick66 said:
What is shared ?Henry Irving said:
Because the budgets are submitted to the EFL and shared across the clubs in that divisionvalleynick66 said:
So the infrastructure stuff you allude to is as you say within the operating costs / losses. I agree.Henry Irving said:
Not really.valleynick66 said:
Difference between undisclosed and a ‘caveated’ figure in my view.cafcfan said:
Well, the actual deal has to be lodged with the EFL.valleynick66 said:
Agreed. But I don’t really know why as I’ve understood it’s an open secret within football circles and it’s only the fans who have to fill in the blanks.Scoham said:
No don’t think so, but we’ve been doing it consistently since the Slater/Jimenez years and the majority of other clubs do the same.valleynick66 said:Did he comment on why transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’ yet happy to share how much money we lose?Just curious as to me it is a barometer of true cash investment.
Aside from that I suspect the complexities make most deals almost unfathomable in terms of cash paid. And any headline fee would be likely to be as accurate as a political party's election manifesto. There's so many clauses, matches played, promotion achieved, goals scored, international appearances, phased payments over the period of a contract and sell-on clauses.
Then should you also include release clauses, buy-out clauses, image rights clauses, signing-on bonuses, loyalty bonuses, etc, that feature as part of a player's contract?
Just as an example, Martial from AS Monaco to Man Utd back in 2015:
A headline fee of €50mn, to be paid in two installments of €20mn up front and €30mn the following year. Plus €10mn if he scored 25 goals during the period of his contract; €10mn if he played 25 games for France; and €10mn if he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or plus other clauses in the event of his onward sale for a fee between €60mn and €100mn meaning Monaco got 50% of the difference.
Edited to add: Martial still hasn't got a club, if we're interested.Still think it shows true investment if more details are shared.
Investment isn't just player fees.
Wages, infrastructure, non-playing staff
Eventually the investment ie losses are shown in the accounts anyway.
And as has been said if it has been agreed between the two clubs that it is not to be revealed it would be damaging to do so.That is hidden to some extent by the constant restructuring of staffing / outsourcing etc. Also when its staff it can relatively quickly be reversed subject to redundancies etc.
We also know the ‘pitch’ spend for us was mostly from a grant.I’m merely making the point that confirmed player spend is a more tangible figure to observe.I don’t agree it’s ‘damaging’ to know the transfer fees as I understand these things are well understood within and between football clubs. But I may be wrong.Do you know for sure fees are not really known by any clubs outside of the 2 directly involved in a transfer? Otherwise how do we know we have the 4th biggest budget etc?The financial forecast or something else? Budget needs more definition for me to get the point you are making.1 -
Sounds competent fellow for someone who worked at DeloittePragueAddick said:
A few years ago when I was on the Supporters Trust board I was able to visit Erik Samuelson the then CEO of AFC Wimbledon, a very good guy with a career at Deloitte behind him, to understand and write up their fan ownership model. He went into generous detail about their budgetting, and then explained that the EFL clubs had agreed to share a spreadsheet showing the budget each club had allocated to player remuneration for the season. As I recall, the figures were previous season actual. I was very pleasantly surprised to learn this. He turned his laptop towards me just long enough to see it existed but not long enough to absorb any figures, it being P&C of course. It allowed Erik (and the others) to set a wage budget which corresponded to a position in the league table they targetted to finish on, i.e. in their case, 4th lowest wage budget, and then their manager had a clear goal - finish 5th lowest (with a bonus for doing so,) and keeping them up. It is shared only by division, so some guesswork is needed regarding relegated and promoted clubs, but it is official and a surprising example of how EFL clubs can work in the collective interest if they put their minds to it.valleynick66 said:
What is shared ?Henry Irving said:
Because the budgets are submitted to the EFL and shared across the clubs in that divisionvalleynick66 said:
So the infrastructure stuff you allude to is as you say within the operating costs / losses. I agree.Henry Irving said:
Not really.valleynick66 said:
Difference between undisclosed and a ‘caveated’ figure in my view.cafcfan said:
Well, the actual deal has to be lodged with the EFL.valleynick66 said:
Agreed. But I don’t really know why as I’ve understood it’s an open secret within football circles and it’s only the fans who have to fill in the blanks.Scoham said:
No don’t think so, but we’ve been doing it consistently since the Slater/Jimenez years and the majority of other clubs do the same.valleynick66 said:Did he comment on why transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’ yet happy to share how much money we lose?Just curious as to me it is a barometer of true cash investment.
Aside from that I suspect the complexities make most deals almost unfathomable in terms of cash paid. And any headline fee would be likely to be as accurate as a political party's election manifesto. There's so many clauses, matches played, promotion achieved, goals scored, international appearances, phased payments over the period of a contract and sell-on clauses.
Then should you also include release clauses, buy-out clauses, image rights clauses, signing-on bonuses, loyalty bonuses, etc, that feature as part of a player's contract?
Just as an example, Martial from AS Monaco to Man Utd back in 2015:
A headline fee of €50mn, to be paid in two installments of €20mn up front and €30mn the following year. Plus €10mn if he scored 25 goals during the period of his contract; €10mn if he played 25 games for France; and €10mn if he was nominated for the Ballon d'Or plus other clauses in the event of his onward sale for a fee between €60mn and €100mn meaning Monaco got 50% of the difference.
Edited to add: Martial still hasn't got a club, if we're interested.Still think it shows true investment if more details are shared.
Investment isn't just player fees.
Wages, infrastructure, non-playing staff
Eventually the investment ie losses are shown in the accounts anyway.
And as has been said if it has been agreed between the two clubs that it is not to be revealed it would be damaging to do so.That is hidden to some extent by the constant restructuring of staffing / outsourcing etc. Also when its staff it can relatively quickly be reversed subject to redundancies etc.
We also know the ‘pitch’ spend for us was mostly from a grant.I’m merely making the point that confirmed player spend is a more tangible figure to observe.I don’t agree it’s ‘damaging’ to know the transfer fees as I understand these things are well understood within and between football clubs. But I may be wrong.Do you know for sure fees are not really known by any clubs outside of the 2 directly involved in a transfer? Otherwise how do we know we have the 4th biggest budget etc?The financial forecast or something else? Budget needs more definition for me to get the point you are making.
0
