Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Gavin Carter "It's a long-term project"
Comments
-
We should have stuck with Sandgaard, we would have won the Champions League by 2028LargeAddick said:A top half competitive squad in three years? So the PL in what, 10 years?
10 -
Not read it.
Anything said about the ownership group touting for new investment and how it's going?0 -
There looking for new investment but want to make sure they get the right partners opposed to taking money from anyone that comes along.carly burn said:Not read it.
Anything said about the ownership group touting for new investment and how it's going?2 -
well I’m sorry Gavin, we all want success NOW!!!
And also long term!!,😂1 -
Bedsaddick said:
It only makes things harder than before if you finish 5th or 6th .jimmymelrose said:He’s wrong in saying that expanding the play offs increases chances of promotion. It just changes the chances.
York City may disagree with that after least season.0 -
Why would they we are know it’s a 4/5 year project said that from day one ..EveshamAddick said:It’s all guff and bollocks, it’ll never happen, the owners will bail……haven’t read it, mind you…0 -
This is an interesting read - Eisner on Pompey finances and the Championship.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce3g3ygjkjvo
0 -
No, of course it wouldn’t. With automatic promotion the third place team gains the percentage chance off the other teams, raising their percentage from 25% to 100%. The chances of promotion remain the same, it just the share of that chance that changes.WSS said:
So if only 3 teams went up automatically and there were no PO places, it wouldn't decrease the chances of promotion?jimmymelrose said:He’s wrong in saying that expanding the play offs increases chances of promotion. It just changes the chances.
The more play off places you offer, the more teams are in it but the lower their chance of winning it becomes. It’s currently 25% for qualifying teams but next season will be 17.5%. These percentages are all things being equal but can be adjusted for teams’ strength. Therefore the third place team’s chances will probably actually fall from currently approximately 30-35% to 25%. The eighth place team, currently with 0% chance, next year probably has a chance, not of 17.5% but 10-15% according to strength.2 -
Yes. You can adjust what I said according. Perhaps 3rd and 4th’s chances remain the same, it’s 5th and 6th’s chances that decrease to the benefits of 7th and 8th.Bedsaddick said:
It only makes things harder than before if you finish 5th or 6th .jimmymelrose said:He’s wrong in saying that expanding the play offs increases chances of promotion. It just changes the chances.
Saying that chances of promotion overall increase is a nonsense. Teams who finish 5th and 6th will definitely regret voting for the change.0 -
But everyone has an increased chance at the start of the season, by having two more spaces.jimmymelrose said:
No, of course it wouldn’t. With automatic promotion the third place team gains the percentage chance off the other teams, raising their percentage from 25% to 100%. The chances of promotion remain the same, it just the share of that chance that changes.WSS said:
So if only 3 teams went up automatically and there were no PO places, it wouldn't decrease the chances of promotion?jimmymelrose said:He’s wrong in saying that expanding the play offs increases chances of promotion. It just changes the chances.
The more play off places you offer, the more teams are in it but the lower their chance of winning it becomes. It’s currently 25% for qualifying teams but next season will be 17.5%. These percentages are all things being equal but can be adjusted for teams’ strength. Therefore the third place team’s chances will probably actually fall from currently approximately 30-35% to 25%. The eighth place team, currently with 0% chance, next year probably has a chance, not of 17.5% but 10-15% according to strength.5 -
Sponsored links:
-
End of the day we’re more likely to finish 7-8th in the future than we are 5-6th. Increases Charltons chances of promotion which end of the day is all we should care about. I will 100% be calling it a disgrace if we do end up finishing 5th/6th though1
-
Crispywood said:End of the day we’re more likely to finish 7-8th in the future than we are 5-6th. Increases Charltons chances of promotion which end of the day is all we should care about. I will 100% be calling it a disgrace if we do end up finishing 5th/6th though
* The seventh placed team featured once in 1990/91 season.
So, unsurprisingly the team that finishes third has the best chance of making it through the play-offs. Presumably because they are a little bit better. I am not expecting the 7th and 8th placed teams to have a very good success rate in the future especially as they will be playing away in a single-leg tie. In addition the winners of the eliminator ties will have played an extra game compared to the others.1 -
But it’s an increased chance of qualifying not of winning!Stu_of_Kunming said:
But everyone has an increased chance at the start of the season, by having two more spaces.jimmymelrose said:
No, of course it wouldn’t. With automatic promotion the third place team gains the percentage chance off the other teams, raising their percentage from 25% to 100%. The chances of promotion remain the same, it just the share of that chance that changes.WSS said:
So if only 3 teams went up automatically and there were no PO places, it wouldn't decrease the chances of promotion?jimmymelrose said:He’s wrong in saying that expanding the play offs increases chances of promotion. It just changes the chances.
The more play off places you offer, the more teams are in it but the lower their chance of winning it becomes. It’s currently 25% for qualifying teams but next season will be 17.5%. These percentages are all things being equal but can be adjusted for teams’ strength. Therefore the third place team’s chances will probably actually fall from currently approximately 30-35% to 25%. The eighth place team, currently with 0% chance, next year probably has a chance, not of 17.5% but 10-15% according to strength.
By your logic, why not go down the table even further?2 -
You can argue they’re more match sharp though us against Pompey was a good example of that.cafcfan said:Crispywood said:End of the day we’re more likely to finish 7-8th in the future than we are 5-6th. Increases Charltons chances of promotion which end of the day is all we should care about. I will 100% be calling it a disgrace if we do end up finishing 5th/6th though
* The seventh placed team featured once in 1990/91 season.
So, unsurprisingly the team that finishes third has the best chance of making it through the play-offs. Presumably because they are a little bit better. I am not expecting the 7th and 8th placed teams to have a very good success rate in the future especially as they will be playing away in a single-leg tie. In addition the winners of the eliminator ties will have played an extra game compared to the others.I don’t disagree that 7th/8th would have a low success rate but say they knock out 5th/6th in a one off game you could argue they may have given the team they play in the semis an automatic by to the final and ln addition knocking out a side who has a decent shot of winning it without the preliminary game.It’s a really tough decision to call whether it’s been a good or bad move guess we will only know with time0 -
Sounds like a very sensible, dull and boring plan … wouldn’t have it any other way
4 -
Just about the roll of a die isn't it? Only slightly loaded to 3rd placecafcfan said:Crispywood said:End of the day we’re more likely to finish 7-8th in the future than we are 5-6th. Increases Charltons chances of promotion which end of the day is all we should care about. I will 100% be calling it a disgrace if we do end up finishing 5th/6th though
* The seventh placed team featured once in 1990/91 season.
So, unsurprisingly the team that finishes third has the best chance of making it through the play-offs. Presumably because they are a little bit better. I am not expecting the 7th and 8th placed teams to have a very good success rate in the future especially as they will be playing away in a single-leg tie. In addition the winners of the eliminator ties will have played an extra game compared to the others.1 -
Yeah, the percentage chance of promotion can only ever equate to 300% across the entire league (3 places multiplied by 100%).jimmymelrose said:
But it’s an increased chance of qualifying not of winning!Stu_of_Kunming said:
But everyone has an increased chance at the start of the season, by having two more spaces.jimmymelrose said:
No, of course it wouldn’t. With automatic promotion the third place team gains the percentage chance off the other teams, raising their percentage from 25% to 100%. The chances of promotion remain the same, it just the share of that chance that changes.WSS said:
So if only 3 teams went up automatically and there were no PO places, it wouldn't decrease the chances of promotion?jimmymelrose said:He’s wrong in saying that expanding the play offs increases chances of promotion. It just changes the chances.
The more play off places you offer, the more teams are in it but the lower their chance of winning it becomes. It’s currently 25% for qualifying teams but next season will be 17.5%. These percentages are all things being equal but can be adjusted for teams’ strength. Therefore the third place team’s chances will probably actually fall from currently approximately 30-35% to 25%. The eighth place team, currently with 0% chance, next year probably has a chance, not of 17.5% but 10-15% according to strength.
By your logic, why not go down the table even further?
The chance of playoffs is what increases, from 400% shared across the league to now 600%.Once the top eight are decided, 200% is taken by the automatically promoted teams, leaving 100% to share between four (now six) teams.
I think the share of percentage for teams in 3rd and 4th will not change significantly - they are already guaranteed a place in the semi final, same as it was before.The majority of the difference will be made up by lowering the chances of the teams in 5th and 6th who now have to deal with an extra game to reach that point.2 -
The chances of promotion aren't anything like 300% (even if that was a mathematical possibility). They are 12.5%, i.e. 3 in 24.Callumcafc said:
Yeah, the percentage chance of promotion can only ever equate to 300% across the entire league (3 places multiplied by 100%).jimmymelrose said:
But it’s an increased chance of qualifying not of winning!Stu_of_Kunming said:
But everyone has an increased chance at the start of the season, by having two more spaces.jimmymelrose said:
No, of course it wouldn’t. With automatic promotion the third place team gains the percentage chance off the other teams, raising their percentage from 25% to 100%. The chances of promotion remain the same, it just the share of that chance that changes.WSS said:
So if only 3 teams went up automatically and there were no PO places, it wouldn't decrease the chances of promotion?jimmymelrose said:He’s wrong in saying that expanding the play offs increases chances of promotion. It just changes the chances.
The more play off places you offer, the more teams are in it but the lower their chance of winning it becomes. It’s currently 25% for qualifying teams but next season will be 17.5%. These percentages are all things being equal but can be adjusted for teams’ strength. Therefore the third place team’s chances will probably actually fall from currently approximately 30-35% to 25%. The eighth place team, currently with 0% chance, next year probably has a chance, not of 17.5% but 10-15% according to strength.
By your logic, why not go down the table even further?
The chance of playoffs is what increases, from 400% shared across the league to now 600%.Once the top eight are decided, 200% is taken by the automatically promoted teams, leaving 100% to share between four (now six) teams.
I think the share of percentage for teams in 3rd and 4th will not change significantly - they are already guaranteed a place in the semi final, same as it was before.The majority of the difference will be made up by lowering the chances of the teams in 5th and 6th who now have to deal with an extra game to reach that point.2 -
Like the people who wanted to ban Monty Python's Life of Brian without watching it, saying it was blasphemous, which of course it wasn't. Heretical, yes, but there's nothing wrong with that. It was banned in Norway so Sweden marketed it as "The film that's too funny for Norway".bobmunro said:sam3110 said:
Almost like people just spout off rubbish without even listening to the video...Henry Irving said:
Which was mentionedct_addick said:
All well and good but they have to invest in the squad to stay up….otherwise we will be back in the shit League One with a big drop in incomeHenry Irving said:
Gates up, retail up, hospitality up which is all good and yes you'd expect that after promotion. I wonder if we'll see hard figures as in a previous directors brief (hopefully not missing out a financial year.Scoham said:Gavin Carter video on 2025
https://x.com/cafcofficial/status/2009218534686306695?s=46&t=A-w3Eq0EWWpjMxring904Q
Steady progress and no grand promises. I always prefer under promise, over deliver to the alternative.
"progressive" signings in the window doesn't tell us much so as ever WIOTOS.
Reminds me of when Mary Whitehouse (yes I'm that old) back in the 70s campaigned to stop an Andy Warhol documentary being aired. When asked had she seen it she replied "No - I'm not watching that filth". Not surprisingly it had a huge audience when it was aired but disappointment for this spotty faced teenager when the only thing vaguely pornographic was a 3 second shot of a bare breast.1 -
There's a link in that article to Millwall announce £300,000 loss in annual accounts. I guess their sales stopped that being a lot, lot more.Weegie Addick said:This is an interesting read - Eisner on Pompey finances and the Championship.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce3g3ygjkjvo0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Members of CAST Board recently met with Gavin Carter. Write-up here:
https://www.castrust.org/2026/03/cast-meeting-with-gavin-carter/
3 -
"The club do wish to achieve Category 1 status for the Academy, which also requires investment but this should pay back over two to three years. Steve Avory is helping with the lengthy application process."
Great news, hope it happens soon.7 -
We ‘like’ spending less than the moneybags teams?0
-
= ’appreciate the frugality’ I supposevalleynick66 said:We ‘like’ spending less than the moneybags teams?0 -
Why wouldn’t you like achieving more by spending less? That’s exactly what Charlton have always donevalleynick66 said:We ‘like’ spending less than the moneybags teams?4 -
All sound constructive, tier 1 academy and aiming to get the wage bill up to compete with other teams.0
-
We haven’t achieved more though.fenaddick said:
Why wouldn’t you like achieving more by spending less? That’s exactly what Charlton have always donevalleynick66 said:We ‘like’ spending less than the moneybags teams?It’s presumptive to say we like it. If we had a moneybags investor we’d all probably like that.More accurate to say we understand / accept it.1 -
I much prefer it this way, little old Charlton currently overachieving our wage budget by 5 or so placesvalleynick66 said:
We haven’t achieved more though.fenaddick said:
Why wouldn’t you like achieving more by spending less? That’s exactly what Charlton have always donevalleynick66 said:We ‘like’ spending less than the moneybags teams?It’s presumptive to say we like it. If we had a moneybags investor we’d all probably like that.More accurate to say we understand / accept it.3 -
The novelty of trying it the other way might be fun for a change though.fenaddick said:
I much prefer it this way, little old Charlton currently overachieving our wage budget by 5 or so placesvalleynick66 said:
We haven’t achieved more though.fenaddick said:
Why wouldn’t you like achieving more by spending less? That’s exactly what Charlton have always donevalleynick66 said:We ‘like’ spending less than the moneybags teams?It’s presumptive to say we like it. If we had a moneybags investor we’d all probably like that.More accurate to say we understand / accept it.1
