Given that EFL Lge 1 clubs are prohibited (on pain of points deductions and financial penalties) from spending more on wages than 60% of Operating turnover plus 100% of player sales revenue How is CAFC faring if its wages bill has been more than total turnover for the last several years? Has the new ownership group got a massive headache in that area, since they're not allowed to fund any shortfall with borrowings ("debt" eg bank loans) they have to fund it with equity i.e. put more cash in by buying more shares which gives them absolutely zero security they'd get any of it back?
Not seen the other club's accounts but our "administrative costs" appear to cover everything bar transfers.
Is that the same in other accounts?
Portsmouth is one I look at each year.
For 2022 their turnover was £12m (£12.5m for 23), cost of sales of £9.3m (10.5m for 23) with a further £2.7m (£2m for 23) Op expenses, so broadly break even. About a 3m loss after amortisation etc, 23 was broadly the same figure.
But their Turnover is a third more than ours, expenses on a like for like are £12m v's nearly £20m. They also have a decent amount of fixed asset of just over £20m (£28m for 23), compared to our £2m.
Whilst we are a London club and therefore just like any other profession cost of living in London means generally higher salaries, that's a huge difference to ultimately fall short of them on the pitch.
We also have 60 more staff........
Academy?
Portsmouth have an academy as well.
It’s Category 3, which will have significantly fewer staff.
But would it account for the 60 staff differential and a large part of the expenses difference? I don't know, but they still have a turnover roughly 1/3rd greater than ours as well as a lot less expense. Also not sure our CAT 2 when you also include the likely cost to run has faired that much better than their Cat 3.
No, but it will be a contributing factor to both costs (travel, accommodation, etc) and staff numbers.
It’s no mystery why there their matchday revenue is higher and that accounts for much of difference in turnover of circa £2.5m.
One thing that can cut costs, is to stop pretending we are a big club and accept we are a medium sized club in league 1. This will cut player expectations of the kind of wages we can pay and the kind of signing on fees they can expect. Maybe we will also get the type of players that we require.
One thing that can cut costs, is to stop pretending we are a big club and accept we are a medium sized club in league 1. This will cut player expectations of the kind of wages we can pay and the kind of signing on fees they can expect. Maybe we will also get the type of players that we require.
Or we could just be better at recruitment and stop paying mediocre executives (including the last three managers).
We won’t succeed by cutting the playing budget. We have a large stadium in London, with associated costs (which cannot be wished away or avoided by shutting sections). I’m not sure how you think perception is changed, but certainly telling players that getting promoted is not the reason they are here is unlikely to encourage the better ones to join.
There have been bigger clubs than Charlton in L1 but we are bigger than most in the division and it’s impossible to sensibly argue otherwise, even using revenue as a metric rather than spending.
Just noticed an application was filed this morning to strike Clear Ocean Capital Limited off the register.
What does this mean please?🙏🏻
As AB already responded, but it also might give us a bit more insight about the club. The accounting year for Clear Ocean got pushed back 3 months, presumably to bring in the sale event and close the books. Those might be worth looking at when they are filed. Without going back to check my facts, the last CO annual report had 47 pages whereas the club one had 34 (somebody correct me if I’m wrong) so there’s always a little extra info to be found. Given Charlton’s recent history, details always matter.
This is why for years now I have argued that the only way for our club to survive and progress is to have a multibillionaire owner for whom theses losses are small change. It is shame we did not cash in on the flurry of such people buying prem clubs at the beginning of the 21st century when we were an up and coming club.
This is why for years now I have argued that the only way for our club to survive and progress is to have a multibillionaire owner for whom theses losses are small change. It is shame we did not cash in on the flurry of such people buying prem clubs at the beginning of the 21st century when we were an up and coming club.
It probably is the only way to prosper as a football club. But also, it needs to be fucking destroyed, as a way the world works, let alone football. So I'm happy for us to slum it outside the Premier League if it means not being a plaything for one of the parasites ruining existence
This is why for years now I have argued that the only way for our club to survive and progress is to have a multibillionaire owner for whom theses losses are small change. It is shame we did not cash in on the flurry of such people buying prem clubs at the beginning of the 21st century when we were an up and coming club.
It probably is the only way to prosper as a football club. But also, it needs to be fucking destroyed, as a way the world works, let alone football. So I'm happy for us to slum it outside the Premier League if it means not being a plaything for one of the parasites ruining existence
Yup, I would rather current owners, TS, or Roland than being a promotional and sports washing campaign for Saudi Arabia.
That being said, we still require insanely rich people to float the club to keep it going.
This model is not sustainable, but I've always been saying that for 15 years now. At some point you run out of rich people. But right now the market is hot for American investment because they see Welcome to Wrexham and no signing Sam Lavelle for 200k.
Not the full story because it’s only transfer costs not wages, but confirmation there has been no net transfer spend since the takeover. The accounts weren’t signed off until March 28th, which is why we have this information about the current season.
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something but don't we only know that there was no net transfer spend in the summer? These accounts don't include January of 2024, so we can't say that there has been "no" net spend since the takeover, just that there wasn't any net spend in the summer window (which wouldn't surprise anyone given that May and Taylor were signed before the takeover, and this figure doesn't include wages).
So signing the likes of Gillesphey, REG, Ramsay, and Coventry won't be included in this. Plus, again, wages are a huge component in costs so you won't see their wages, the wages of Wickham and LuaLua, plus players signed on free transfers in the summer (10A, Edun, Hector, Thomas, Jones, the various loanees, etc.)
Not the full story because it’s only transfer costs not wages, but confirmation there has been no net transfer spend since the takeover. The accounts weren’t signed off until March 28th, which is why we have this information about the current season.
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something but don't we only know that there was no net transfer spend in the summer? These accounts don't include January of 2024, so we can't say that there has been "no" net spend since the takeover, just that there wasn't any net spend in the summer window (which wouldn't surprise anyone given that May and Taylor were signed before the takeover, and this figure doesn't include wages).
So signing the likes of Gillesphey, REG, Ramsay, and Coventry won't be included in this. Plus, again, wages are a huge component in costs so you won't see their wages, the wages of Wickham and LuaLua, plus players signed on free transfers in the summer (10A, Edun, Hector, Thomas, Jones, the various loanees, etc.)
This is why for years now I have argued that the only way for our club to survive and progress is to have a multibillionaire owner for whom theses losses are small change. It is shame we did not cash in on the flurry of such people buying prem clubs at the beginning of the 21st century when we were an up and coming club.
It probably is the only way to prosper as a football club. But also, it needs to be fucking destroyed, as a way the world works, let alone football. So I'm happy for us to slum it outside the Premier League if it means not being a plaything for one of the parasites ruining existence
Yup, I would rather current owners, TS, or Roland than being a promotional and sports washing campaign for Saudi Arabia.
That being said, we still require insanely rich people to float the club to keep it going.
This model is not sustainable, but I've always been saying that for 15 years now. At some point you run out of rich people. But right now the market is hot for American investment because they see Welcome to Wrexham and no signing Sam Lavelle for 200k.
You do know that last year saw a record number of billionaires world wide.
This is why for years now I have argued that the only way for our club to survive and progress is to have a multibillionaire owner for whom theses losses are small change. It is shame we did not cash in on the flurry of such people buying prem clubs at the beginning of the 21st century when we were an up and coming club.
It probably is the only way to prosper as a football club. But also, it needs to be fucking destroyed, as a way the world works, let alone football. So I'm happy for us to slum it outside the Premier League if it means not being a plaything for one of the parasites ruining existence
Yup, I would rather current owners, TS, or Roland than being a promotional and sports washing campaign for Saudi Arabia.
That being said, we still require insanely rich people to float the club to keep it going.
This model is not sustainable, but I've always been saying that for 15 years now. At some point you run out of rich people. But right now the market is hot for American investment because they see Welcome to Wrexham and no signing Sam Lavelle for 200k.
You do know that last year saw a record number of billionaires world wide.
This is why for years now I have argued that the only way for our club to survive and progress is to have a multibillionaire owner for whom theses losses are small change. It is shame we did not cash in on the flurry of such people buying prem clubs at the beginning of the 21st century when we were an up and coming club.
It probably is the only way to prosper as a football club. But also, it needs to be fucking destroyed, as a way the world works, let alone football. So I'm happy for us to slum it outside the Premier League if it means not being a plaything for one of the parasites ruining existence
You make an interesting point there mate and one I totally agree with football is fu*ked imo. I personally would be really happy if we could be a well run club that is competitive in the Championship. Tbh the thought of being back in the Premiership and getting tonked every week like Burnley, Sheffield Utd etc I honestly don’t see the point
Not the full story because it’s only transfer costs not wages, but confirmation there has been no net transfer spend since the takeover. The accounts weren’t signed off until March 28th, which is why we have this information about the current season.
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something but don't we only know that there was no net transfer spend in the summer? These accounts don't include January of 2024, so we can't say that there has been "no" net spend since the takeover, just that there wasn't any net spend in the summer window (which wouldn't surprise anyone given that May and Taylor were signed before the takeover, and this figure doesn't include wages).
So signing the likes of Gillesphey, REG, Ramsay, and Coventry won't be included in this. Plus, again, wages are a huge component in costs so you won't see their wages, the wages of Wickham and LuaLua, plus players signed on free transfers in the summer (10A, Edun, Hector, Thomas, Jones, the various loanees, etc.)
Second para of notes
Thanks, I read that as being for 2023, since it references 2022 in brackets.
Not the full story because it’s only transfer costs not wages, but confirmation there has been no net transfer spend since the takeover. The accounts weren’t signed off until March 28th, which is why we have this information about the current season.
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something but don't we only know that there was no net transfer spend in the summer? These accounts don't include January of 2024, so we can't say that there has been "no" net spend since the takeover, just that there wasn't any net spend in the summer window (which wouldn't surprise anyone given that May and Taylor were signed before the takeover, and this figure doesn't include wages).
So signing the likes of Gillesphey, REG, Ramsay, and Coventry won't be included in this. Plus, again, wages are a huge component in costs so you won't see their wages, the wages of Wickham and LuaLua, plus players signed on free transfers in the summer (10A, Edun, Hector, Thomas, Jones, the various loanees, etc.)
Second para of notes
Thanks, I read that as being for 2023, since it references 2022 in brackets.
Yes. It’s confusing because the comparative figure has to be the previous full year. But these particular figures only relate to the period from June 30th 2023 to March 28th 2024, because that is when the accounts were signed off and they are a required disclosure of what has happened since the 2023 year end.
Not the full story because it’s only transfer costs not wages, but confirmation there has been no net transfer spend since the takeover. The accounts weren’t signed off until March 28th, which is why we have this information about the current season.
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something but don't we only know that there was no net transfer spend in the summer? These accounts don't include January of 2024, so we can't say that there has been "no" net spend since the takeover, just that there wasn't any net spend in the summer window (which wouldn't surprise anyone given that May and Taylor were signed before the takeover, and this figure doesn't include wages).
So signing the likes of Gillesphey, REG, Ramsay, and Coventry won't be included in this. Plus, again, wages are a huge component in costs so you won't see their wages, the wages of Wickham and LuaLua, plus players signed on free transfers in the summer (10A, Edun, Hector, Thomas, Jones, the various loanees, etc.)
Second para of notes
Thanks, I read that as being for 2023, since it references 2022 in brackets.
Yes. It’s confusing because the comparative figure has to be the previous full year. But these particular figures only relate to the period from June 30th 2023 to March 28th 2024, because that is when the accounts were signed off and they are a required disclosure of what has happened since the 2023 year end.
Comments
It’s no mystery why there their matchday revenue is higher and that accounts for much of difference in turnover of circa £2.5m.
Maybe we will also get the type of players that we require.
Well that’s how I believe we’re supposed to think.
That being said, we still require insanely rich people to float the club to keep it going.
This model is not sustainable, but I've always been saying that for 15 years now. At some point you run out of rich people. But right now the market is hot for American investment because they see Welcome to Wrexham and no signing Sam Lavelle for 200k.
So signing the likes of Gillesphey, REG, Ramsay, and Coventry won't be included in this. Plus, again, wages are a huge component in costs so you won't see their wages, the wages of Wickham and LuaLua, plus players signed on free transfers in the summer (10A, Edun, Hector, Thomas, Jones, the various loanees, etc.)