There's no chance you're getting promoted out of this league with academy players occupying most positions in the team (can't think of any club who have managed this) and if your transfer window entirely depends on shifting out deadweight we aren't going to have one until their contracts expire.
To get club revenue up and attendances up you need to put good players on the pitch, people aren't going to become Charlton fans watching players such as the ones they are trying to offload. They need to take the hit.
I think I have asked this before and no one seemed to know. I understand that we can't go over the wage budget structure so we need to try and offload player A to club B to ensure we can then bring in a new player. Are we allowed to pay off our own players contract to take away their wages from the books and bring in a new player?
Apologies if someone has explained this before, I can't remember
You can't just "pay" off players.
They have to agree to it.
But assuming the player does agree the spend on paying them off is still spending on players so still hits your budget.
Ah ok cheers for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if that would be some kind of way around it.
Could have been a case of paying them off (if they accepted) and then delving into the free agents. I imagine the players we were wanting to shift would have accepted it to get some cash and find a new club.
So realistically then our only chance of a really good budget is if we sell out The Valley consistently? Or am I reading this wrong
Well in that case it's a vicious circle. We're not going to get big crowds coming to see a team bolted together on a budget. So the budget goes down. So the crowd shrinks. So the budget goes down.... repeat until eventual demise.
There's no chance you're getting promoted out of this league with academy players occupying most positions in the team (can't think of any club who have managed this) and if your transfer window entirely depends on shifting out deadweight we aren't going to have one until their contracts expire.
To get club revenue up and attendances up you need to put good players on the pitch, people aren't going to become Charlton fans watching players such as the ones they are trying to offload. They need to take the hit.
I think I have asked this before and no one seemed to know. I understand that we can't go over the wage budget structure so we need to try and offload player A to club B to ensure we can then bring in a new player. Are we allowed to pay off our own players contract to take away their wages from the books and bring in a new player?
Apologies if someone has explained this before, I can't remember
You can't just "pay" off players.
They have to agree to it.
But assuming the player does agree the spend on paying them off is still spending on players so still hits your budget.
Ah ok cheers for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if that would be some kind of way around it.
Could have been a case of paying them off (if they accepted) and then delving into the free agents. I imagine the players we were wanting to shift would have accepted it to get some cash and find a new club.
So realistically then our only chance of a really good budget is if we sell out The Valley consistently? Or am I reading this wrong
Well in that case it's a vicious circle. We're not going to get big crowds coming to see a team bolted together on a budget. So the budget goes down. So the crowd shrinks. So the budget goes down.... repeat until eventual demise.
Yea I said this on twitter to someone that it's a vicious cycle.
It's slightly off topic but there are parallels, I used to compete on a game a while back, done it for years and played at a 'professional' level. We had a massive issue where the main sponsors (Microsoft) wouldn't fund us as they would say there wasn't enough interest in Europe to carry on and would put the majority of the money towards America. Which eventually killed off the European region.
They would always argue back 'we will add more money if more people play' and I would always tell them that people will just want to do something else with their time or play a different game competitively. Fast forward the whole scene is dead cause they wouldn't invest and stuck with their guns.
It's similar here that they are expecting people to turn up to games without actually convincing the locals that it's worth attending. With 9 London clubs all doing better than us (7 of which drastically so) how do you convince the stragglers and neutrals to come to us.
It will get to a point where it keeps on dwindling, they need to take the hit to get us in the championship, this current situation is beyond unsustainable in League 1
There's no chance you're getting promoted out of this league with academy players occupying most positions in the team (can't think of any club who have managed this) and if your transfer window entirely depends on shifting out deadweight we aren't going to have one until their contracts expire.
To get club revenue up and attendances up you need to put good players on the pitch, people aren't going to become Charlton fans watching players such as the ones they are trying to offload. They need to take the hit.
I think I have asked this before and no one seemed to know. I understand that we can't go over the wage budget structure so we need to try and offload player A to club B to ensure we can then bring in a new player. Are we allowed to pay off our own players contract to take away their wages from the books and bring in a new player?
Apologies if someone has explained this before, I can't remember
You can't just "pay" off players.
They have to agree to it.
But assuming the player does agree the spend on paying them off is still spending on players so still hits your budget.
Ah ok cheers for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if that would be some kind of way around it.
Could have been a case of paying them off (if they accepted) and then delving into the free agents. I imagine the players we were wanting to shift would have accepted it to get some cash and find a new club.
So realistically then our only chance of a really good budget is if we sell out The Valley consistently? Or am I reading this wrong
Our budget is probably already a ‘good’ budget for this level, definitely in the top 6. Selling out the valley would obviously help but we’ve already got one of the biggest budgets in the league.
Our problem is the amount of budget that is taken up by players like Kirk, Aneke, McGrandles, Jaiyesimi that aren’t really being used. Which is why it looks like the owners had to step in and put a little extra in, because they probably planned to get rid of Kirk and McGrandles this summer
Whether the investors put it in as equity or a loan they're likely to lose money unless we get promoted as I can't see anyone that will pay anywhere near £12m for the club from them so put in as equity and give us the best chance possible - which in my opinion, is as early as possible - NOT after we lose Dobson, CBT and sell Leaburn.
Whether the investors put it in as equity or a loan they're likely to lose money unless we get promoted as I can't see anyone that will pay anywhere near £12m for the club from them so put in as equity and give us the best chance possible - which in my opinion, is as early as possible - NOT after we lose Dobson, CBT and sell Leaburn.
Yep I think this year is (maybe was!) a huge opportunity. Weaker league and we still have those 3 players. Be very lucky to have even 1 of them next season
The real news here is, if CM is to be believed, is that equity injections ARE possible, something we were told by those close to CM couldn't happen.
Of course, if they boost the turnover this year then, as CM says, they may need to do it again the years after but it is possible.
But we've already gone outside the budget which is, if glass half full, shows there is flexibility and a willingness to inject money if needed or, if glass half empty, the budget was too small and over reliant on shifting Kirk and McGrandles.
The other points are that U21s get older and so will come into account eventually if not sold so like equity injections it's not without longer term consequences.
Also that one of the two players not loaned out would most likely be McGrandles, a favourite of Appleton's at Lincoln.
Imagine being taken over by billionaires and your budget depends on shifting out those two. You've got to laugh really.
There's no chance you're getting promoted out of this league with academy players occupying most positions in the team (can't think of any club who have managed this) and if your transfer window entirely depends on shifting out deadweight we aren't going to have one until their contracts expire.
To get club revenue up and attendances up you need to put good players on the pitch, people aren't going to become Charlton fans watching players such as the ones they are trying to offload. They need to take the hit.
I think I have asked this before and no one seemed to know. I understand that we can't go over the wage budget structure so we need to try and offload player A to club B to ensure we can then bring in a new player. Are we allowed to pay off our own players contract to take away their wages from the books and bring in a new player?
Apologies if someone has explained this before, I can't remember
You can't just "pay" off players.
They have to agree to it.
But assuming the player does agree the spend on paying them off is still spending on players so still hits your budget.
Ah ok cheers for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if that would be some kind of way around it.
Could have been a case of paying them off (if they accepted) and then delving into the free agents. I imagine the players we were wanting to shift would have accepted it to get some cash and find a new club.
So realistically then our only chance of a really good budget is if we sell out The Valley consistently? Or am I reading this wrong
Our budget is probably already a ‘good’ budget for this level, definitely in the top 6. Selling out the valley would obviously help but we’ve already got one of the biggest budgets in the league.
Our problem is the amount of budget that is taken up by players like Kirk, Aneke, McGrandles, Jaiyesimi that aren’t really being used. Which is why it looks like the owners had to step in and put a little extra in, because they probably planned to get rid of Kirk and McGrandles this summer
I will say that is one thing that se7 partners can’t be blamed for. They inherited a lot of duds, and St Johnstone is the only one we’ve been able to get off the books (I don’t know if we’re still paying some of his wages). Someone like Kirk could’ve been a really good bit of business had he turned out alright, it’s just not happened that way and now the 4 year contract looks stupid. The worst one for me is/was Aneke. Whoever was involved in bringing him back really screwed us. Resigning him will probably go down as one of the worst transfers we’ve done for a good few years
So he has really only confirmed what we already knew that it’s a limited budget that did not balance because we did not offload some players.
I don’t think he has said equity has or will definitely be injected. I think the words may mean they will if they have to. The budget will change again in January after player deals then. I infer he’s just said what he needs to for now because these things presumably only get reconciled at the end of a season.
More significant is the ‘my investors’ and ‘as owner’.
He’s no more an owner of Charlton than I am of any company I own shares in. He doesn’t have a majority interest. He’s just an employee of the real owners.
Here's a conspiracy starter for 10. McGrandles wasn't offloaded in the window because Appleton said he wanted him in the squad - This before Appleton was supposedly selected. It's a theory i feel holds no water, but knock your socks off with it.
There are a lot of experts on this site that might have opinions on this, both the rules and/or CM's intrepretation.
My comments would be
1) when 8 under 21 players get older and progress to becoming part of the clubs (measured under SCMP) player wage bill - we will hit a brick wall requiring a massive cash injection. (Assuming that they haven't been sold.....)
2) We have several injured players/out of form players who command a high wage, we are carrying a large dead weight in the wages which is not productive. So we look like a high spending club - and we ARE. But this money is wasted. Let me be clear this is not the fault of the players- it's the fault of the owners/managers that wanted those players and were over generous in salaries and length of contract in their attempts to get them.
As always I always add - I know nothing- just an interested observer
“Why is it a problem? The reason it’s a problem is that you can cover with ownership equity funding the additional spending for the current season, but when you sign players on three and four-year contracts, that gap remains for many seasons afterwards. You are building up a cost model which your club cannot support."
"I had to write, as the owner, a letter to the EFL apologizing for this, explaining why it had happened and effectively agreeing that we would cover the excess with an equity injection."
He also describes himself as the owner - Ronnie Moore!
Reading deducted 3 points as the directors haven't paid up for exceeding the budget this week.
Deduction wasn't for exceeding the budget, it was for not depositing 125% of the wage bill in a secure account as they had promised to a few weeks ago when they were sanctioned with the four point deduction, three of which were suspended.
He left Forest after being involved in signing 1,000 players in the close season of 2022/23. To quote "Reds owner Evangelos Marinakis sacked Scott and Syrianos back in October as Forest initially struggled with life back in the top flight"
So, Andy Scott was out of work and needed a job.
Charlie Methven (CM)
He resigned from Sunderland in late 2019 and wasn't working within football when CAFC was highlighted as a club he was interested in acquiring / getting the finance to acquire. CM has 5% of the shares in CAFC and brokered the deal. It is unknown if he paid for his 5% or was given it (+ fees) for brokering the deal. Simon Lenagan (SL)
Lenagan Group: Simon Lenagan Known to CM from CM's time at Oxford United where his Father, Ian Lenagan who owned Oxford United, sold it in 2016 and who now owns Wigan Warriors. SL I would hazard a guess has been majorly helped by his Dad over the years, if you look at Ian Lenagan's wikipedia... Ian Lenagan - Wikipedia Jim Rodwell
Known to CM for his time at Sunderland and previous roles as CEO at Notts County, Scunthorpe, Sunderland and Peterborough. Jim was out of work when CM brokered the deal to buy CAFC. Jim Rodwell - Wikipedia
Ed Warwick
An accountant. His other company he was registered director of had assets of £15,000 at October 2022. application-pdf I believe he was known to CM and JR from previous days. More difficult to find internet history of his whole experience/job status at the time - but I am sure it's been covered before.
That answer it for you? Salaries, fees and the million in one chance that they could get CAFC promoted, whilst cutting costs and selling all the family silverware?
and there is an argument that Scott got the recruitment right at Forest, and it needed time to bed in
It DOESN'T change the fact he was out of work when he joined us. It also doesn't change the fact he was given an unlimited budget and scope when in the Forest role. That isn't the case here. I'm not saying he won't be good for us - but the question of why - I have answered it, I think.
and there is an argument that Scott got the recruitment right at Forest, and it needed time to bed in
It DOESN'T change the fact he was out of work when he joined us. It also doesn't change the fact he was given an unlimited budget and scope when in the Forest role. That isn't the case here. I'm not saying he won't be good for us - but the question of why - I have answered it, I think.
Wasn't the question "why would the investors stump up their cash on such an unlikely gamble"; rather than "why would a bunch of unemployed folk take a new job" though?
There are a lot of experts on this site that might have opinions on this, both the rules and/or CM's intrepretation.
My comments would be
1) when 8 under 21 players get older and progress to becoming part of the clubs (measured under SCMP) player wage bill - we will hit a brick wall requiring a massive cash injection. (Assuming that they haven't been sold.....)
2) We have several injured players/out of form players who command a high wage, we are carrying a large dead weight in the wages which is not productive. So we look like a high spending club - and we ARE. But this money is wasted. Let me be clear this is not the fault of the players- it's the fault of the owners/managers that wanted those players and were over generous in salaries and length of contract in their attempts to get them.
As always I always add - I know nothing- just an interested observer
Just to add this scenario with a lot of under 21's coming of age and hence on the monitored SCMP wage bill, faced with the choice of an injection of cash or selling a young talent the owners may choose to sell. But other clubs are smart and may realise we are "distressed" sellers and we will more than likely fail to get the value we expect for the talent
and there is an argument that Scott got the recruitment right at Forest, and it needed time to bed in
It DOESN'T change the fact he was out of work when he joined us. It also doesn't change the fact he was given an unlimited budget and scope when in the Forest role. That isn't the case here. I'm not saying he won't be good for us - but the question of why - I have answered it, I think.
Wasn't the question "why would the investors stump up their cash on such an unlikely gamble"; rather than "why would a bunch of unemployed folk take a new job" though?
Because the investors simply have no idea what CM has sold them is unachievable. £12m punt between 3 of them, no need for further cash outside what is planned in the business plan - ability worst case to sell three or four players and get their money back.
The upside - significant.
It's small beer for them - they aren't worried about it but if it works, they'll really enjoy the upside.
and there is an argument that Scott got the recruitment right at Forest, and it needed time to bed in
It DOESN'T change the fact he was out of work when he joined us. It also doesn't change the fact he was given an unlimited budget and scope when in the Forest role. That isn't the case here. I'm not saying he won't be good for us - but the question of why - I have answered it, I think.
Wasn't the question "why would the investors stump up their cash on such an unlikely gamble"; rather than "why would a bunch of unemployed folk take a new job" though?
Because the investors simply have no idea what CM has sold them is unachievable. £12m punt between 3 of them, no need for further cash outside what is planned in the business plan - ability worst case to sell three or four players and get their money back.
The upside - significant.
It's small beer for them - they aren't worried about it but if it works, they'll really enjoy the upside.
Not counting Charlieboy, I think there are 6 investors. Do we really think that 6 super wealthy investors have all taken a punt on Charlie's numbers without looking into it themselves? £1-3M each (or whatever it is) may be small beer in their net worth but they will have advisors going through their presented investment opportunities and picking holes or they would not stay wealthy for very long! The 3 main guys at least are global Investors who will have countless opportunities presented to them all the time. I don't know what the answer is and maybe you are right and they are just all rich mugs... but I just reckon they paid next to nowt for us (not the fabled and never proven £12M) and then it starts to make a bit of sense as a low risk punt.
and there is an argument that Scott got the recruitment right at Forest, and it needed time to bed in
It DOESN'T change the fact he was out of work when he joined us. It also doesn't change the fact he was given an unlimited budget and scope when in the Forest role. That isn't the case here. I'm not saying he won't be good for us - but the question of why - I have answered it, I think.
Wasn't the question "why would the investors stump up their cash on such an unlikely gamble"; rather than "why would a bunch of unemployed folk take a new job" though?
Because the investors simply have no idea what CM has sold them is unachievable. £12m punt between 3 of them, no need for further cash outside what is planned in the business plan - ability worst case to sell three or four players and get their money back.
The upside - significant.
It's small beer for them - they aren't worried about it but if it works, they'll really enjoy the upside.
Not counting Charlieboy, I think there are 6 investors. Do we really think that 6 super wealthy investors have all taken a punt on Charlie's numbers without looking into it themselves? £1-3M each (or whatever it is) may be small beer in their net worth but they will have advisors going through their presented investment opportunities and picking holes or they would not stay wealthy for very long! The 3 main guys at least are global Investors who will have countless opportunities presented to them all the time. I don't know what the answer is and maybe you are right and they are just all rich mugs... but I just reckon they paid next to nowt for us (not the fabled and never proven £12M) and then it starts to make a bit of sense as a low risk punt.
I'm a film distributor - and it's very similar to football. There are many, many, many billionaires and multi millionaires who invest a few hundred thousand - few million into an independent film based on a presentation that the film they are investing into could be the next Blairwitch Project, Paranormal Activity, Lock Stock etc
It happens.
It really does. They are THAT wealthy, it is "risk money" and it's for the hope of it winning an Oscar/breaking out/getting into the Premier League. Delete as applicable.
The big question is if either of them sign. If they do, that will be a real coup for them, unless they get sold at the end of the season along with Leaburn etc to balance the books...
Comments
It's slightly off topic but there are parallels, I used to compete on a game a while back, done it for years and played at a 'professional' level. We had a massive issue where the main sponsors (Microsoft) wouldn't fund us as they would say there wasn't enough interest in Europe to carry on and would put the majority of the money towards America. Which eventually killed off the European region.
They would always argue back 'we will add more money if more people play' and I would always tell them that people will just want to do something else with their time or play a different game competitively. Fast forward the whole scene is dead cause they wouldn't invest and stuck with their guns.
It's similar here that they are expecting people to turn up to games without actually convincing the locals that it's worth attending. With 9 London clubs all doing better than us (7 of which drastically so) how do you convince the stragglers and neutrals to come to us.
It will get to a point where it keeps on dwindling, they need to take the hit to get us in the championship, this current situation is beyond unsustainable in League 1
Sheikh Mansour eat your heart out.
it’s a gazillion to 1 shot to earn fuck all anyway if everything works out within reason
ttps://www.charltonafc.com/news/methven-new-independent-football-regulator
There are a lot of experts on this site that might have opinions on this, both the rules and/or CM's intrepretation.
My comments would be
1) when 8 under 21 players get older and progress to becoming part of the clubs (measured under SCMP) player wage bill - we will hit a brick wall requiring a massive cash injection. (Assuming that they haven't been sold.....)
2) We have several injured players/out of form players who command a high wage, we are carrying a large dead weight in the wages which is not productive. So we look like a high spending club - and we ARE. But this money is wasted. Let me be clear this is not the fault of the players- it's the fault of the owners/managers that wanted those players and were over generous in salaries and length of contract in their attempts to get them.
As always I always add - I know nothing- just an interested observer
He left Forest after being involved in signing 1,000 players in the close season of 2022/23. To quote "Reds owner Evangelos Marinakis sacked Scott and Syrianos back in October as Forest initially struggled with life back in the top flight"
So, Andy Scott was out of work and needed a job.
Charlie Methven (CM)
He resigned from Sunderland in late 2019 and wasn't working within football when CAFC was highlighted as a club he was interested in acquiring / getting the finance to acquire. CM has 5% of the shares in CAFC and brokered the deal. It is unknown if he paid for his 5% or was given it (+ fees) for brokering the deal.
Simon Lenagan (SL)
Lenagan Group: Simon Lenagan
Known to CM from CM's time at Oxford United where his Father, Ian Lenagan who owned Oxford United, sold it in 2016 and who now owns Wigan Warriors. SL I would hazard a guess has been majorly helped by his Dad over the years, if you look at Ian Lenagan's wikipedia... Ian Lenagan - Wikipedia
Jim Rodwell
Known to CM for his time at Sunderland and previous roles as CEO at Notts County, Scunthorpe, Sunderland and Peterborough. Jim was out of work when CM brokered the deal to buy CAFC. Jim Rodwell - Wikipedia
Ed Warwick
An accountant. His other company he was registered director of had assets of £15,000 at October 2022. application-pdf
I believe he was known to CM and JR from previous days. More difficult to find internet history of his whole experience/job status at the time - but I am sure it's been covered before.
That answer it for you?
Salaries, fees and the million in one chance that they could get CAFC promoted, whilst cutting costs and selling all the family silverware?
Oh and let's not forget CM said back in December 2022 he had absolutely no intention of becoming involved in CAFC........ Ex-Sunderland co-owner Charlie Methven responds to Charlton Athletic reports (sunderlandecho.com)
It also doesn't change the fact he was given an unlimited budget and scope when in the Forest role. That isn't the case here. I'm not saying he won't be good for us - but the question of why - I have answered it, I think.
The upside - significant.
It's small beer for them - they aren't worried about it but if it works, they'll really enjoy the upside.
Not counting Charlieboy, I think there are 6 investors. Do we really think that 6 super wealthy investors have all taken a punt on Charlie's numbers without looking into it themselves?
£1-3M each (or whatever it is) may be small beer in their net worth but they will have advisors going through their presented investment opportunities and picking holes or they would not stay wealthy for very long!
The 3 main guys at least are global Investors who will have countless opportunities presented to them all the time.
I don't know what the answer is and maybe you are right and they are just all rich mugs... but I just reckon they paid next to nowt for us (not the fabled and never proven £12M) and then it starts to make a bit of sense as a low risk punt.
It happens.
It really does. They are THAT wealthy, it is "risk money" and it's for the hope of it winning an Oscar/breaking out/getting into the Premier League. Delete as applicable.
Are they forming a circle and saying to each other ‘after you’, ‘no, after you’?
Big chance to prove themselves right here