Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Michael Appleton - March 2025 appointed Shrewsbury manager (p124)
Comments
-
I'm guessing this is a standard plan for most clubs outside of the premier league and those still receiving parachute paymentsAirman Brown said:
Because the starting point is not to cash in the assets; that would be a nonsensical approach. The aim is to progress despite selling players; not to sell players per se.Addick_8 said:
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.0 -
Thought it all along. This is Methvens baby. He used the 'investors' to pass the O&D test. Told them as a running concern they won't have to shell out any money and even offered to throw a few quid in himself as a commitment that his plan is a goer.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.DA9 said:
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.
They must be scratching their heads a bit though if they've managed to have a gander at the league table?3 -
I see, interesting.. Thanks for the info.Airman Brown said:
Because the starting point is not to cash in the assets; that would be a nonsensical approach. The aim is to progress despite selling players; not to sell players per se.Addick_8 said:
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.
Basically, fingers crossed we (somehow) go up this year.0 -
The £4m number (£4.25m to be precise) came from Methven in a LinkedIn message posted on here the other day.Braziliance said:
No it didn't, there was no mention on how much the bids were at all, just that there was interestHenry Irving said:
Did that say £4m offers?CafcSCP said:
Cawley in the SLP.Henry Irving said:
Source?Addick_8 said:
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.
think that was from the club directly.
Not saying I don’t believe it because that seems like a realistic sort of number for CBT, Dobson, Leaburn to be knocked back but take with a decent pinch of salt.0 -
https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/5080455/#Comment_5080455Callumcafc said:
The £4m number (£4.25m to be precise) came from Methven in a LinkedIn message posted on here the other day.Braziliance said:
No it didn't, there was no mention on how much the bids were at all, just that there was interestHenry Irving said:
Did that say £4m offers?CafcSCP said:
Cawley in the SLP.Henry Irving said:
Source?Addick_8 said:
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.
think that was from the club directly.
Not saying I don’t believe it because that seems like a realistic sort of number for CBT, Dobson, Leaburn to be knocked back but take with a decent pinch of salt.
1 -
I don't know about all that, I was referring to the SLP article which was mentioned.Callumcafc said:
The £4m number (£4.25m to be precise) came from Methven in a LinkedIn message posted on here the other day.Braziliance said:
No it didn't, there was no mention on how much the bids were at all, just that there was interestHenry Irving said:
Did that say £4m offers?CafcSCP said:
Cawley in the SLP.Henry Irving said:
Source?Addick_8 said:
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.
think that was from the club directly.
Not saying I don’t believe it because that seems like a realistic sort of number for CBT, Dobson, Leaburn to be knocked back but take with a decent pinch of salt.
I wouldn't believe a word Methven says tbh mate, I trust the Sunderland and Oxford United fans who have told me he's full of shite.
For instance didn't someone fairy reliable on here say that Edun was on a free but with a sell on clause?
Also not sure if someone said Alfie was paid for by someone other than the mystery men1 -
So if we keep him past January that means we are keeping him into his final year. So then we would have to sell him so that we don’t lose him for free. The smart thing to do is sell in January to get a higher fee but get a loan back so we still have him ourselves for the same amount of timemendonca said:
His contract expires in July 2025. It's not imminent.NabySarr said:
Selling Leaburn in January (with a loan back) would be a good decision. He’s not going to sign a new contract, so if we can sell him in January we will still get a good fee (especially as January is often inflated transfer fees) and then still hopefully keep him ourselves till the end of the season.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.DA9 said:
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.0 -
That song was number one on the day I was born.Chunes said:To the tune of Sugar, Honey Honey
We've got Apples
(Do do do do dooo)
Ah, Micky Micky
(Do do do do dooo)
Up the football league we go
With captain George Dobbo
The Geezer gives me the creeps.
Thanks, you’ve ruined it 😫😫😫😫😫😫😫😫😂😂😂😂😂😂1 -
He‘ll still be under 24 in the summer of 2025, in fact 21, so not free.NabySarr said:
So if we keep him past January that means we are keeping him into his final year. So then we would have to sell him so that we don’t lose him for free. The smart thing to do is sell in January to get a higher fee but get a loan back so we still have him ourselves for the same amount of timemendonca said:
His contract expires in July 2025. It's not imminent.NabySarr said:
Selling Leaburn in January (with a loan back) would be a good decision. He’s not going to sign a new contract, so if we can sell him in January we will still get a good fee (especially as January is often inflated transfer fees) and then still hopefully keep him ourselves till the end of the season.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.DA9 said:
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.0 -
It’s the rate at which we’d need to sell players that makes this different.Todds_right_hook said:
I'm guessing this is a standard plan for most clubs outside of the premier league and those still receiving parachute paymentsAirman Brown said:
Because the starting point is not to cash in the assets; that would be a nonsensical approach. The aim is to progress despite selling players; not to sell players per se.Addick_8 said:
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.1 - Sponsored links:
-
I think the latest episode of his Where's the money gone? podcast, published yesterday, shows that Charlie thinks he's cracked it by planning on the financial restructuring brought about by impending regulatory reform, including Premier League payments to EFL clubs plugging a lot of the gaps. Even in League One, provided you play the game.
That involves new rules that will bestow a competitive advantage on clubs that bring academy players through (hence the amount of academy players in our squad), allowing more budget (albeit a smaller budget) to be spent on fewer players. One would assume, key players.Essentially, that all, he seems to be suggesting, protects our investors from the financial risks that plagued all our owners to date (bar the fake sheik and the hair plugs guy, or were just there for the free bitches and bread).
A sensible gamble? He doesn't say it, but with more showcasing of competent academy graduates in the squad (ie the proverbial shop window), it's likely that any issues to the plan will be further offset by player sales... thus it always was for a club like ours. Another insurance policy, at least as long as the conveyor belt keeps turning. The investors seem to think they've sussed it without having to spunk huge sums (in fact, Charlie says the rules won't let them).6 -
Yes, I gathered that’s what he thinks but it’s just a hypothesis and I still think he hasn’t a clue about the club. He just thinks it’s a set of numbers.LoOkOuT said:I think the latest episode of his Where's the money gone? podcast, published yesterday, shows that Charlie thinks he's cracked it by planning on the financial restructuring brought about by impending regulatory reform, including Premier League payments to EFL clubs plugging a lot of the gaps. Even in League One, provided you play the game.
That involves new rules that will bestow a competitive advantage on clubs that bring academy players through (hence the amount of academy players in our squad), allowing more budget (albeit a smaller budget) to be spent on fewer players. One would assume, key players.Essentially, that all, he seems to be suggesting, protects our investors from the financial risks that plagued all our owners to date (bar the fake sheik and the hair plugs guy, or were just there for the free bitches and bread).
A sensible gamble? He doesn't say it, but with more showcasing of competent academy graduates in the squad (ie the proverbial shop window), it's likely that any issues to the plan will be further offset by player sales... thus it always was for a club like ours. Another insurance policy, at least as long as the conveyor belt keeps turning. The investors seem to think they've sussed it without having to spunk huge sums (in fact, Charlie says the rules won't let them).5 -
Echoes of when RD started the network because he was banking on FFP being fully implemented, instead of the watered down version we got.LoOkOuT said:I think the latest episode of his Where's the money gone? podcast, published yesterday, shows that Charlie thinks he's cracked it by planning on the financial restructuring brought about by impending regulatory reform, including Premier League payments to EFL clubs plugging a lot of the gaps. Even in League One, provided you play the game.
That involves new rules that will bestow a competitive advantage on clubs that bring academy players through (hence the amount of academy players in our squad), allowing more budget (albeit a smaller budget) to be spent on fewer players. One would assume, key players.Essentially, that all, he seems to be suggesting, protects our investors from the financial risks that plagued all our owners to date (bar the fake sheik and the hair plugs guy, or were just there for the free bitches and bread).
A sensible gamble? He doesn't say it, but with more showcasing of competent academy graduates in the squad (ie the proverbial shop window), it's likely that any issues to the plan will be further offset by player sales... thus it always was for a club like ours. Another insurance policy, at least as long as the conveyor belt keeps turning. The investors seem to think they've sussed it without having to spunk huge sums (in fact, Charlie says the rules won't let them).4 -
If anything Methane is more dangerous than any of the previous encumbants since Roland. He has a plan, shit or bust and it involves the family silver. The other lot were either not very good conmen, or deluded rich men weighed down by ego.
If I were not Charlton to the core, Roland played a blinder. Methane, we shall see.2 -
Roland has us by the short and curlies.4
-
So how did Coventry return to the Championship and nearly the Premiership after the off field problems they have had.
From League 2 to a Wembley play off.
Can't just be down to Mark Robins 🤔
And Luton obviously but I believe they did it differently from Coventry and they have gone from the Conference to the Premier(for 1 season only)1 -
We sometimes feel like a doomed club;Great stadium that we don’t own, that we perhaps can’t afford, and certainly can’t fill right now.
A succession of owners with a succession of plans for the club that don’t seem to add up.Serious potential owners put off by the financial black hole, and the separation of the club from the freeholds.A fan base that has run out a patience with League One status, the owners, the management (soon probably), and to some extent the players.
Our nearby rivals are flying, while we are struggling.
BUT:
We have DLM; Dobbo, Leaburn & May.We have various promising young players breaking through, and more potential in the academy.Our new manager might improve things, who knows.
We have a more successful history than our nearby rivals. History doesn’t win matches, but it at least winds them up.
We have fans that set up parties and win elections to protect the club’s future.And we have a game on Saturday where our allocation has sold out.
Is there a glimmer of hope?3 -
There is if we win.1
-
The issue is we're not as good a team as we, (the fanbase overall) think.
The owners see thousands of fans go to Man Utd in the cup and don't understand if we have rubbish results, recruit poorly and don't look like making the play offs the attendances will rapidly decline and their business plan will be £Millions off.
We have a very impressive line up of potentially good young players but I doubt, if two years on, if the club has sold many of them and we are not anywhere near promotion, will the investors be happy their £12m investment has sold a lot of the family silver and stood still, if not regressed.
CM had to sell a dream to get the investors on board. With luck it could work. I'm not sure we look like getting lucky at the moment.
Maybe Leaburn becomes a major force and him and May get 40 goals between them.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
The number of players used by us per season offers an insight of the instability on the playing side that has plagued us for years, never mind the owners who come and go and the fact that we don't own the ground. Never recovered from Roland offering short term contracts and new owners longer ones to the wrong players. As @supaclive says, we've regressed whilst others have passed us by.
Edit. We've managed to succeed under some crap owners before now, so there is hope.3 -
I really hope Appleton and this team prove you wrong like I think they can, You don’t give it a rest.supaclive said:The issue is we're not as good a team as we, (the fanbase overall) think.
The owners see thousands of fans go to Man Utd in the cup and don't understand if we have rubbish results, recruit poorly and don't look like making the play offs the attendances will rapidly decline and their business plan will be £Millions off.
We have a very impressive line up of potentially good young players but I doubt, if two years on, if the club has sold many of them and we are not anywhere near promotion, will the investors be happy their £12m investment has sold a lot of the family silver and stood still, if not regressed.
CM had to sell a dream to get the investors on board. With luck it could work. I'm not sure we look like getting lucky at the moment.
Maybe Leaburn becomes a major force and him and May get 40 goals between them.4 -
As long as Appleton starts May and Leaburn together in a 2 then I don’t really care how the rest of the team lines up.12
-
Covered_End_Lad said:As long as Appleton starts May and Leaburn together in a 2 then I don’t really care how the rest of the team lines up.
This is the key point for me. Got to be building around that strike partnership.0 -
When everyone is fit, whichever system we play we will have to leave out at least one of CBT, Chem Campbell, Fraser, Camara, Leaburn and May as you can’t fit them all in.Covered_End_Lad said:As long as Appleton starts May and Leaburn together in a 2 then I don’t really care how the rest of the team lines up.
History tells us Appleton plays a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 so it is probably going to be May or Leaburn that misses out. Hopefully he doesn’t do this as I do agree we should be starting those 2 up front as much as possible whether it’s 4-4-2, diamond or 3-5-2
I still think a diamond works best when everyone is fit. CBT misses out but I think he is good as an an impact player anyway1 -
Why .. we have excellent agreement on the rent and we have 13 more years left … so no panic ti waste 50 mill nowSolidgone said:Roland has us by the short and curlies.3 -
New owners have already said they intend to speak to RD about the valley and TG .. there’s no panic over it at the moment there intentions is to purchase bothJamesSeed said:We sometimes feel like a doomed club;Great stadium that we don’t own, that we perhaps can’t afford, and certainly can’t fill right now.
A succession of owners with a succession of plans for the club that don’t seem to add up.Serious potential owners put off by the financial black hole, and the separation of the club from the freeholds.A fan base that has run out a patience with League One status, the owners, the management (soon probably), and to some extent the players.
Our nearby rivals are flying, while we are struggling.
BUT:
We have DLM; Dobbo, Leaburn & May.We have various promising young players breaking through, and more potential in the academy.Our new manager might improve things, who knows.
We have a more successful history than our nearby rivals. History doesn’t win matches, but it at least winds them up.
We have fans that set up parties and win elections to protect the club’s future.And we have a game on Saturday where our allocation has sold out.
Is there a glimmer of hope?19 -
NabySarr said:
When everyone is fit, whichever system we play we will have to leave out at least one of CBT, Chem Campbell, Fraser, Camara, Leaburn and May as you can’t fit them all in.Covered_End_Lad said:As long as Appleton starts May and Leaburn together in a 2 then I don’t really care how the rest of the team lines up.
History tells us Appleton plays a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 so it is probably going to be May or Leaburn that misses out. Hopefully he doesn’t do this as I do agree we should be starting those 2 up front as much as possible whether it’s 4-4-2, diamond or 3-5-2
I still think a diamond works best when everyone is fit. CBT misses out but I think he is good as an an impact player anyway
Would be more than happy with a diamond of Dobbo, Camara , Fraser and Chem Campbell when all fit. CBT off the bench at tiring legs would work for me.2 -
May and Leaburn are two of our best players. Leaving either out when both fit would be a mistake.7
-
For how much?RonnieMoore said:
New owners have already said they intend to speak to RD about the valley and TG .. there’s no panic over it at the moment there intentions is to purchase bothJamesSeed said:We sometimes feel like a doomed club;Great stadium that we don’t own, that we perhaps can’t afford, and certainly can’t fill right now.
A succession of owners with a succession of plans for the club that don’t seem to add up.Serious potential owners put off by the financial black hole, and the separation of the club from the freeholds.A fan base that has run out a patience with League One status, the owners, the management (soon probably), and to some extent the players.
Our nearby rivals are flying, while we are struggling.
BUT:
We have DLM; Dobbo, Leaburn & May.We have various promising young players breaking through, and more potential in the academy.Our new manager might improve things, who knows.
We have a more successful history than our nearby rivals. History doesn’t win matches, but it at least winds them up.
We have fans that set up parties and win elections to protect the club’s future.And we have a game on Saturday where our allocation has sold out.
Is there a glimmer of hope?0
