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.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
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.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
It’s trivial in the context of a £10m operating loss in 2021/22. Even if that’s £6m in 2023/24, it’s 2.5% of the total so not really any kind of game changer. I’d imagine they would have overestimated ticket income alone by several times that, having no first-hand knowledge of the fanbase.
The problem as I see it is not that anyone is here with malign intent. It’s not an evil conspiracy. It’s just that Methven etc have to make unrealistic assumptions in order to get the investors on board. They are able to do so at no risk to themselves (since I doubt CM paid for his shareholding), in which case why wouldn’t you?
The problem for us as fans is that this house of cards is likely to fall down again.
So not so trivial then is my take.
A reasonable percentage of the funds earmarked for football squad / coaches AND coupled with over optimistic revenue streams.
I understand your point about no conspiracy. Yes it is a weak plan (as far as we have seen it / allowed to understand it).
I think it means they are unlikely to get rid of MA however poor our results come the end of the year so lets just hope he is able to do something with the constraints he has.
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.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
His contract expires in July 2025. It's not imminent.
No but to get a big fee for him we’ll likely need to sell him by next summer unless he signs a new deal before then.
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.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
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.
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.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
Source?
Cawley in the SLP. think that was from the club directly.
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.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
Source?
Cawley in the SLP. think that was from the club directly.
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.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
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. 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.
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.
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.
But Miles is always going to be sold regardless. Another decent season by him which I think we’re all expecting will push his value higher than it is right now and let’s be honest who can blame him or indeed the club if a Premier League club come calling. Now the £X million the club gets for miles might well go back into getting the budget back reigned in with only a proportion put back into recruitment but when has that been any different, ever ?
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.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
Source?
Cawley in the SLP. think that was from the club directly.
Did that say £4m offers?
No it didn't, there was no mention on how much the bids were at all, just that there was interest
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.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
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. 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.
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.
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.
But Miles is always going to be sold regardless. Another decent season by him which I think we’re all expecting will push his value higher than it is right now and let’s be honest who can blame him or indeed the club if a Premier League club come calling. Now the £X million the club gets for miles might well go back into getting the budget back reigned in with only a proportion put back into recruitment but when has that been any different, ever ?
Agreed but I’m just using him as the obvious example. What is different in my opinion is that you are not going to get the ownership group deciding to invest more in January in the way that previous owners could choose to do (rightly or wrongly).
In short they are not going to chase losses; and they are not going to be influenced by events on the pitch. They will simply hold Methven and co to account on their business plan in due course.
You could see that as sound business practice but if the plan is unrealistic it won’t get us anywhere.
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.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
It’s trivial in the context of a £10m operating loss in 2021/22. Even if that’s £6m in 2023/24, it’s 2.5% of the total so not really any kind of game changer. I’d imagine they would have overestimated ticket income alone by several times that, having no first-hand knowledge of the fanbase.
The problem as I see it is not that anyone is here with malign intent. It’s not an evil conspiracy. It’s just that Methven etc have to make unrealistic assumptions in order to get the investors on board. They are able to do so at no risk to themselves (since I doubt CM paid for his shareholding), in which case why wouldn’t you?
The problem for us as fans is that this house of cards is likely to fall down again.
Why do these groups continuously get these numbers wrong? I'm constantly reading people saying some of our support still see the club being on some sort of premier league hiatus but it appears these chancers also also seem to think it's just around the corner and we are a league one club in name only?
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.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
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.
I'm guessing this is a standard plan for most clubs outside of the premier league and those still receiving parachute payments
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.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
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. 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.
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.
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.
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. They must be scratching their heads a bit though if they've managed to have a gander at the league table?
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.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
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.
I see, interesting.. Thanks for the info. Basically, fingers crossed we (somehow) go up this year.
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.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
Source?
Cawley in the SLP. think that was from the club directly.
Did that say £4m offers?
No it didn't, there was no mention on how much the bids were at all, just that there was interest
The £4m number (£4.25m to be precise) came from Methven in a LinkedIn message posted on here the other day.
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 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.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
Source?
Cawley in the SLP. think that was from the club directly.
Did that say £4m offers?
No it didn't, there was no mention on how much the bids were at all, just that there was interest
The £4m number (£4.25m to be precise) came from Methven in a LinkedIn message posted on here the other day.
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 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.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
Source?
Cawley in the SLP. think that was from the club directly.
Did that say £4m offers?
No it didn't, there was no mention on how much the bids were at all, just that there was interest
The £4m number (£4.25m to be precise) came from Methven in a LinkedIn message posted on here the other day.
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 don't know about all that, I was referring to the SLP article which was mentioned.
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 men
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.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
His contract expires in July 2025. It's not imminent.
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 time
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.
Trivial.
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
His contract expires in July 2025. It's not imminent.
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 time
He‘ll still be under 24 in the summer of 2025, in fact 21, so not free.
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.
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?
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.
I'm guessing this is a standard plan for most clubs outside of the premier league and those still receiving parachute payments
It’s the rate at which we’d need to sell players that makes this different.
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).
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).
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.
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).
Echoes of when RD started the network because he was banking on FFP being fully implemented, instead of the watered down version we got.
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.
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)
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?
Comments
That goes for any of the others too.
A reasonable percentage of the funds earmarked for football squad / coaches AND coupled with over optimistic revenue streams.
I understand your point about no conspiracy. Yes it is a weak plan (as far as we have seen it / allowed to understand it).
I think it means they are unlikely to get rid of MA however poor our results come the end of the year so lets just hope he is able to do something with the constraints he has.
think that was from the club directly.
You could see that as sound business practice but if the plan is unrealistic it won’t get us anywhere.
I'm constantly reading people saying some of our support still see the club being on some sort of premier league hiatus but it appears these chancers also also seem to think it's just around the corner and we are a league one club in name only?
They must be scratching their heads a bit though if they've managed to have a gander at the league table?
Basically, fingers crossed we (somehow) go up this year.
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 men
The Geezer gives me the creeps.
Thanks, you’ve ruined it 😫😫😫😫😫😫😫😫😂😂😂😂😂😂
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.
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).
If I were not Charlton to the core, Roland played a blinder. Methane, we shall see.
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)
A succession of owners with a succession of plans for the club that don’t seem to add up.
Our nearby rivals are flying, while we are struggling.
BUT:
We have DLM; Dobbo, Leaburn & May.
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.
Is there a glimmer of hope?