Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlie Methven and Gavin Carter at Bromley Addicks
Comments
-
From what I saw his left foot was on the Astroturf pitch surround and his right foot was on the pitch itself.SoundAsa£ said:
Can someone please verify that Charley Methven was actually ‘on’ the pitch…..I thought he was on the pitch surround, next to the tunnel?charltonbob said:
Agree think Methven should stay off the pitch but I liked fenaddicks post because I hadn't seen the video. (Not that you have remarked on people liking his postRothko said:
huge load of so fucking whatfenaddick said:
It's at the end of this, about 2:17 https://x.com/CAFCofficial/status/1843587531280929066Rothko said:what video?
)
5 -
I take it this is the thing to “make us more interesting”?Henry Irving said:Part 5.
Q: Was watching Wrexham v Birmingham and Wrexham have Delta Airlines as a sponsor. Do we need that sort of sponsor.
CM Ryan Reynolds and Tom Brady have given their "brand" a resonance beyond the fan base, they have made them "interesting" to a wider audience in the North America. They have done league 1 a favour as it has given us a profile. Ryan Reynolds has said they bought Wrexham after watching Sunderland till I die" so they should thank me!. "Brand" isn't something to fear"
We're looking at something to make us more "interesting"
The cost controls coming in will be harsh; the two big factors in overcoming them will be income and your academy.
Birmingham's revenue is £28m, the crowd but also big commercial deals
Us, we hope to get to £13m
Q: Selling May, CBT and Dobbo
CBT: Agent said he's going now (January) or in the summer so they sold him.
May: Three things - Family wanted to move, clubs were offering him a lot more money, it was a football decision by Jones not by central management. Rather spend the £750k on others than pay more to May. Board do ask questions as to why on all transfer, what are the reasons, why do you need another centre half (example given was A Mitchel would cost us £250k a year so £3/4m over three years so they ask questions but don't make decision on which player other than is it in budget.
Jones asked if the £750k fee would go into his transfer budget and was told it was. We spent £1.3m in the summer. Ramsey cost £150k, Dixon £100k. (CM slipped these number in over the evening, I first I though maybe it as a mistake but by the third time I figured out it was deliberate).
Dobbo. Was big mates with him from Sunderland as two southerners up north, great guy, loves him. Story is already out there, we offered him an improved deal but he wanted more so he signed in Hungary but that fell through and he went to Wrexham
Football side (Scott and Jones) make football decisions but no transfer in or out happens without agreement from Jones. He has "absolute final say". Charlton fans saying that we want football people making football decisions, unlike previous regimes, and CM agrees and that is what is happening.
We currently have 27 first teamers which is too many, too many to actually get them all on the training pitch at the same time.
Partly this is because they are all fit for a change with no soft tissue/hamstring injuries - GC "Don't jinx it"
This is due partly to £400k spent on new training pitches and better medical care lead by Will Abbott. A doctor may not seem like an exciting signing but it might be one of the best.
Will look for some to go out in January to free up space for "targeted additions"
(Potts and Hylton weren't mentioned but aren't both on short deals?)
We have invested in data science (sorry, he didn't say what package) and recruitment generally.
Some debate with a lifer about was it a "fact" that T Campbell, Anderson and Kanu aren't good enough which CM said was an opinion, not fact. Jones is the manager and a football person and if he thinks they are good enough that's good enough for him.
CM said young players have to play otherwise they will never develop and repeated that it is football people making football decisions as fans wanted (not Martin Sandgaard or Thomas Driesen)
CM said he'd been told similar about three young players (he named them but I've never heard of them) at Sunderland who fans said shouldn't be picked but all three are now playing at the top of the Championship. (slightly a moot point after the Birmingham game IMHO)
https://x.com/cafcofficial/status/1844686883940626536?s=46&t=A-w3Eq0EWWpjMxring904Q
0 -
Was hoping for Taylor Swift or her boyfriend but this guy will have to do.0
-
He went onto the pitch in front of me in block C of the west lower. He was with a younger man and was, it appeared getting him to experience the atmosphere at the end of the match including the positive reaction to NJ and the players. Like anyone else who was there to support Charlton, Charlie was just soaking up and celebrating the moment.Henry Irving said:
Definately on the pitch, see the video.SoundAsa£ said:
Can someone please verify that Charley Methven was actually ‘on’ the pitch…..I thought he was on the pitch surround, next to the tunnel?charltonbob said:
Agree think Methven should stay off the pitch but I liked fenaddicks post because I hadn't seen the video. (Not that you have remarked on people liking his postRothko said:
huge load of so fucking whatfenaddick said:
It's at the end of this, about 2:17 https://x.com/CAFCofficial/status/1843587531280929066Rothko said:what video?)
1 -
So to summarise my understanding of this thread:
1. We have rich owners relative to League One who aren’t willing to invest short term on players to give us high probability to get us promoted automatically within two years, but rather with a long term strategy.
2. We have rich owners who could afford to buy the ground but choose not to, for no given reason. The only reason for this must be because if their plan fails (7 years?) then a club sale would be easier.
3. This long term strategy would enable us based on budget, income etc ranking amongst all clubs, to finish 4-5th on average each year, therefore giving us a probabilty of a play off win within 5 years (supposing we finish 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd).
I don’t know the statistics for this but I would estimate the probability of a play off win as:
3rd place: 50%
4th place 30%
5th place: 10%
6th place : 10%
If we finish this season, for example 8th then we could lengthen that forecast to 6 years.
4. The strategy is to further strengthen our youth policy both to get more big sales, and also a third of our playing squad.
Conclusion: We are now a stable, well run top half League One team.
I’m not trying to be either positive or negative, just factual. Have I got this about right?6 -
I think you have the gist of it ignoring your percentages.0
-
^ I think that is all broadly accurate...but you miss the fact we are running at a loss of £9M a year which is not stable imo.In fact, if we took 2.5 years for the playoff win from now then we would have lost £36M from the moment they took over (4yrs at £9M a year) and should have just done a Birmingham and bought the league as it would have been cheaper and we would probably be promoted with a team capable of challenging at the top end of the championship.1
-
Think you are making huge assumptions, have missed or just not understood a lot of the detail, are making up those percentages as well as guessing a lot of other stuff.
3 -
It’s a family thing.Henry Irving said:Think you are making huge assumptions, have missed or just not understood a lot of the detail, are making up those percentages as well as guessing a lot of other stuff.7 -
I think for no.2 there is a good reason and that's the asking price and the plan is to keep in discussions with the Duchatalets.
I think "No good reason" is harsh.3 -
Sponsored links:
-
jimmymelrose said:So to summarise my understanding of this thread:
1. We have rich owners relative to League One who aren’t willing to invest short term on players to give us high probability to get us promoted automatically within two years, but rather with a long term strategy.
2. We have rich owners who could afford to buy the ground but choose not to, for no given reason. The only reason for this must be because if their plan fails (7 years?) then a club sale would be easier.
3. This long term strategy would enable us based on budget, income etc ranking amongst all clubs, to finish 4-5th on average each year, therefore giving us a probabilty of a play off win within 5 years (supposing we finish 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd).
I don’t know the statistics for this but I would estimate the probability of a play off win as:
3rd place: 50%
4th place 30%
5th place: 10%
6th place : 10%
If we finish this season, for example 8th then we could lengthen that forecast to 6 years.
4. The strategy is to further strengthen our youth policy both to get more big sales, and also a third of our playing squad.
Conclusion: We are now a stable, well run top half League One team.
I’m not trying to be either positive or negative, just factual. Have I got this about right?
I'm not sure it's the case that not owning the ground makes the club easier to sell.
4 -
Let's face it the only way our current owners can make any money is by getting us promoted.
No one is going to give them a profit if we remain in league one.
So for that reason alone I believe that promotion either this season or next must be the aim.
If we don't go up in the next couple of years they will sell up and go.5 -
But they don't know the asking price, so I'd like to know what they have been discussing, surely that would be the first thing they would ask if they actually wanted to buy The Valley ?Kap10 said:I think for no.2 there is a good reason and that's the asking price and the plan is to keep in discussions with the Duchatalets.
I think "No good reason" is harsh.0 -
Or maybe it's not.charltonbob said:
But they don't know the asking price, so I'd like to know what they have been discussing, surely that would be the first thing they would ask if they actually wanted to buy The Valley ?Kap10 said:I think for no.2 there is a good reason and that's the asking price and the plan is to keep in discussions with the Duchatalets.
I think "No good reason" is harsh.0 -
I’ve always wanted to know what their promotion timeline is0
-
Henry Irving said:
Or maybe it's not.charltonbob said:
But they don't know the asking price, so I'd like to know what they have been discussing, surely that would be the first thing they would ask if they actually wanted to buy The Valley ?Kap10 said:I think for no.2 there is a good reason and that's the asking price and the plan is to keep in discussions with the Duchatalets.
I think "No good reason" is harsh.
If they were serious about buying it then knowing the price would be pretty early in the conversation I think. Methvens line of billionaires are different or however he phrased it was just nonsense.1 -
Maybe they know the price quoted last time and haven't mentioned prices because they don't want him to latch onto the £50m from last time. At the end of the day, no-one is going to chuck that amount of money at RD for the ground, irrespective of who owns us at the time, so as a stick to beat the current ownership group with, it's not really a fair whack7
-
I think, providing rent was reasonable, they'd be happy with a long lease next time it comes up for renewal. It probably wouldn't be popular but I can understand their logic. If you own the stadium you have to find someone willing to pay an extra £30/40m whenever they decide to sell the club. Hopefully that's a long time away and we'll be in a higher division so less of an issue.0
-
West Ham are perfectly happy with a long lease model. But of course their landlord is a collection of impotent mugs: us. We are apparently unable to force them to pay a fair rent.0
-
Totally separate issue though. Playing there is unpopular with West Ham fans and they don't have an emotional attachment to their ground like we do with The Valley. If they'd been renting Upton Park it might have been a different storyPragueAddick said:West Ham are perfectly happy with a long lease model. But of course their landlord is a collection of impotent mugs: us. We are apparently unable to force them to pay a fair rent.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
CM on buying the Valley as quoted above:
"It's ongoing but we're not in total control, it's a conversation". The owners would love to own the Valley. It's an ongoing commercial discussion but it's not come to the sharp end yet. Not discussed a price. Negotiations will be handled by the owners are they are very used to making big capital investment deals, big hitters which shows the importance they see in the deal."
Now, we can all decide to what extent CM is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I remain sceptical, but this is what he said.
I'm not sure how that got to "the owners don't want to buy the Valley, for no apparent reason".
From other conversations I've had, I suspect that the club know RD is a tricky person to deal with and don't want, or feel the need, to rush the negotiations or give him any advantage in those negotiations.5 -
For what it's worth I have more faith in our current owners as negotiators than I did in any of our other post Roland owners. Not because of them necessarily but purely because they aren't TS or ESIHenry Irving said:CM on buying the Valley as quoted above:
"It's ongoing but we're not in total control, it's a conversation". The owners would love to own the Valley. It's an ongoing commercial discussion but it's not come to the sharp end yet. Not discussed a price. Negotiations will be handled by the owners are they are very used to making big capital investment deals, big hitters which shows the importance they see in the deal."
Now, we can all decide to what extent CM is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I remain sceptical, but this is what he said.
I'm not sure how that got to "the owners don't want to buy the Valley, for no apparent reason".
From other conversations I've had, I suspect that the club know RD is a tricky person to deal with and don't want, or feel the need, to rush the negotiations or give him any advantage in those negotiations.2 -
Probably waiting for him to crock it and snap it up cheap0
-
Hardly, would almost certainly be passed to his children.Sheepie1985 said:Probably waiting for him to crock it and snap it up cheap2 -
Daniel Kretinsky is a very sharp operator. He will have noted what Spurs are able to do to "monetise" their stadium and that currently West Ham can't do any of that. He will bide his time, until maybe when Sadiq Khan stands down, and then make London an offer it can't refuse. And so everything we who campaigned against that shoddy deal warned of, will come to pass. Mark my words.fenaddick said:
Totally separate issue though. Playing there is unpopular with West Ham fans and they don't have an emotional attachment to their ground like we do with The Valley. If they'd been renting Upton Park it might have been a different storyPragueAddick said:West Ham are perfectly happy with a long lease model. But of course their landlord is a collection of impotent mugs: us. We are apparently unable to force them to pay a fair rent.2 -
I'll have a word with my local MP.PragueAddick said:
Daniel Kretinsky is a very sharp operator. He will have noted what Spurs are able to do to "monetise" their stadium and that currently West Ham can't do any of that. He will bide his time, until maybe when Sadiq Khan stands down, and then make London an offer it can't refuse. And so everything we who campaigned against that shoddy deal warned of, will come to pass. Mark my words.fenaddick said:
Totally separate issue though. Playing there is unpopular with West Ham fans and they don't have an emotional attachment to their ground like we do with The Valley. If they'd been renting Upton Park it might have been a different storyPragueAddick said:West Ham are perfectly happy with a long lease model. But of course their landlord is a collection of impotent mugs: us. We are apparently unable to force them to pay a fair rent.
See if he can help 😉1 -
Henry Irving said:CM on buying the Valley as quoted above:
"It's ongoing but we're not in total control, it's a conversation". The owners would love to own the Valley. It's an ongoing commercial discussion but it's not come to the sharp end yet. Not discussed a price. Negotiations will be handled by the owners are they are very used to making big capital investment deals, big hitters which shows the importance they see in the deal."
Now, we can all decide to what extent CM is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I remain sceptical, but this is what he said.
I'm not sure how that got to "the owners don't want to buy the Valley, for no apparent reason".
From other conversations I've had, I suspect that the club know RD is a tricky person to deal with and don't want, or feel the need, to rush the negotiations or give him any advantage in those negotiations.
I believe Jimmy Melrose actually said "owners don't choose to buy The Valley for no given reason", not "owners don't want to buy The Valley for no apparent reason". A quite different inference and Jimmy is not inaccurate imo.
As for what CM said at the meeting about buying The Valley, I thought the most illuminating part was that whilst he was quick to say the owners wanted to buy The Valley and were dealing with those negotiations themselves; it was only when pressed, that he admitted they had not actually asked for a price and suddenly inferred the talks with RD were typical tenant/landlord talks.
I came out of the meeting feeling certain the real talks are around extending the lease, not ownership; that was just my view and I could well be wrong... but I have spent 24 yrs in a career listening to people trying to bullshit me on commercial property matters.
The fact this ownership were prepared to buy us with just 12 or so years left on a lease for a building so utterly fundamental to our existence, which would cost unbelievable amounts to replace, and which is owned by a stubborn, scorned and clearly unreasonable individual is a real mystery to me. Especially if they didn't even sound him out for a price beforehand.
They may have not created the original situation but they bought into it with their eyes open. I hope they find a fix to it which is good for the club.0 -
I think this is a key element in understanding their ambitions, at least at the time of purchase. It's a mystery that anyone would pay an eight-figure sum for a business with no fixed assets, but I think it's likely to be because the outlay wasn't significant to the main players, to a greater or lesser extent they were spun a line about what the business is and finally they can afford to walk away if things don't work out. Now, their position may change over time, may already have changed, but I do see the big risk as being that they walk away at a point no one else is willing to pick it up because of the short remaining lease. I'm also not sure how much difference in cost there is likely to be in practice between a long lease and acquiring the freehold, although I guess the development potential (real or imaginary) would be a concern to the seller with the latter.Athletico Charlton said:Henry Irving said:CM on buying the Valley as quoted above:
"It's ongoing but we're not in total control, it's a conversation". The owners would love to own the Valley. It's an ongoing commercial discussion but it's not come to the sharp end yet. Not discussed a price. Negotiations will be handled by the owners are they are very used to making big capital investment deals, big hitters which shows the importance they see in the deal."
Now, we can all decide to what extent CM is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I remain sceptical, but this is what he said.
I'm not sure how that got to "the owners don't want to buy the Valley, for no apparent reason".
From other conversations I've had, I suspect that the club know RD is a tricky person to deal with and don't want, or feel the need, to rush the negotiations or give him any advantage in those negotiations.
I believe Jimmy Melrose actually said "owners don't choose to buy The Valley for no given reason", not "owners don't want to buy The Valley for no apparent reason". A quite different inference and not Jimmy is not inaccurate imo.
As for what CM said at the meeting about buying The Valley, I thought the most illuminating part was that whilst he was quick to say the owners wanted to buy The Valley and were dealing with those negotiations themselves; it was only when pressed, that he admitted they had not actually asked for a price and suddenly inferred the talks with RD were typical tenant/landlord talks.
I came out of the meeting feeling certain the real talks are around extending the lease, not ownership; that was just my view and I could well be wrong... but I have spent 24 yrs in a career listening to people trying to bullshit me on commercial property matters.
The fact this ownership were prepared to buy us with just 12 or so years left on a lease for a building so utterly fundamental to our existence, which would cost unbelievable amounts to replace, and which is owned by a stubborn, scorned and clearly unreasonable individual is a real mystery to me. Especially if they didn't even sound him out for a price beforehand.
They may have not created the original situation but they bought into it with their eyes open. I hope they find a fix to it which is good for the club.
7 -
I also got the impression that a longer lease would also be desirable to them as it would offer security, as would a purchase.1
-
It would be very surprising if they didn't want to extend the lease, because if they do manage to get up a division it will become a bigger and bigger issue.Henry Irving said:I also got the impression that a longer lease would also be desirable to them as it would offer security, as would a purchase.1
