My concern is that it has always been muted that a team has a style of play from youth to first team, with the way Jones likes to play football will the ethos of what has been coached for years in the Academy change ?
I’ve watched some of the u21 streams, they now play 3-5-2 like the first team but the style is very different. The games though are far less intense and physical, every club including us passed out from the back.
On my way now, I have my own questions in mind, but I don't mind asking for someone if it's an important question.
I.e., I'm not willing to ask what Charlie Methvens favourite football chant is.
CM only got the proper hump when Braziliance suggested that TC, KA and DK weren’t good enough to be starting. His reply was well that’s your opinion.
The issue being that the owners wanted a London club with a strong academy and therefore you can’t fully develop these players unless they get into the first team.
With the greatest respect to the players I mentioned, as I really like them, they just aren't. If our primary objective is promotion, which it should be, those lads shouldn't be starting. They'll improve by being around the first team and getting minutes and being subs. They wouldn't start for Birmingham or Bolton, so they shouldn't start here imo.
What he says is a good strategy in theory, but it's also a flawed one in current practice, as you'd never build a team strong enough for promotion. All the youth that would be good enough, would only be sold like Lookie, Konsa, Gomez etc. The only way you can truly utilise youth and play them in the teams is in the upper leagues, isn't realistic in league 1.
He was dismissive of your question about the transfer fees, and tried to make a fool of your maths, but it was a valid question. Our transfer budget wasn't significant and we didn't spend much.
He can say we spent double other league 1 teams but the stats online suggest we didn't and even if we did, it's not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly. He alluded to money being spent on Coventry but that's now been cleared up as no fee.
All in all, I think he talks well, and he's a good spokesman, he'd make an excellent politician, but there was a bit of dodging as expected, and their plan isn't a great one imho. I still have my doubts about them. A couple of billionaires in love with a football club, would have made more of an impact.
Finally, his comments about youth were wide of the mark, very wide. Young fans will be harder to retain if we stay in this league/remain bad at football, no amount of Chicken George or a free drink will change that. No offense chicken george.
Not saying you are wrong (I agree with you on Kanu and Anderson), but our last promotion team had Phillips, Dijksteel, Aribo and Grant as regular starters and then Lapslie and Morgan squad players. It can be done
The difference is they were supplemented with genuine quality, Cullen, Bielek, Taylor - We don't have anyone who could lace their boots in our first team.
On my way now, I have my own questions in mind, but I don't mind asking for someone if it's an important question.
I.e., I'm not willing to ask what Charlie Methvens favourite football chant is.
CM only got the proper hump when Braziliance suggested that TC, KA and DK weren’t good enough to be starting. His reply was well that’s your opinion.
The issue being that the owners wanted a London club with a strong academy and therefore you can’t fully develop these players unless they get into the first team.
With the greatest respect to the players I mentioned, as I really like them, they just aren't. If our primary objective is promotion, which it should be, those lads shouldn't be starting. They'll improve by being around the first team and getting minutes and being subs. They wouldn't start for Birmingham or Bolton, so they shouldn't start here imo.
What he says is a good strategy in theory, but it's also a flawed one in current practice, as you'd never build a team strong enough for promotion. All the youth that would be good enough, would only be sold like Lookie, Konsa, Gomez etc. The only way you can truly utilise youth and play them in the teams is in the upper leagues, isn't realistic in league 1.
He was dismissive of your question about the transfer fees, and tried to make a fool of your maths, but it was a valid question. Our transfer budget wasn't significant and we didn't spend much.
He can say we spent double other league 1 teams but the stats online suggest we didn't and even if we did, it's not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly. He alluded to money being spent on Coventry but that's now been cleared up as no fee.
All in all, I think he talks well, and he's a good spokesman, he'd make an excellent politician, but there was a bit of dodging as expected, and their plan isn't a great one imho. I still have my doubts about them. A couple of billionaires in love with a football club, would have made more of an impact.
Finally, his comments about youth were wide of the mark, very wide. Young fans will be harder to retain if we stay in this league/remain bad at football, no amount of Chicken George or a free drink will change that. No offense chicken george.
Not saying you are wrong (I agree with you on Kanu and Anderson), but our last promotion team had Phillips, Dijksteel, Aribo and Grant as regular starters and then Lapslie and Morgan squad players. It can be done
The difference is they were supplemented with genuine quality, Cullen, Bielek, Taylor - We don't have anyone who could lace their boots in our first team.
Which isn't the fault of Karoy, Kanu etc, it's the signings we made in the summer which aren't good enough. And indeed the choice not to bring in any loan players.
Yes we've also loaned rubbish, but we wouldn't have gone up without Cullen and Bielik, Stockport wouldn't be near the top of L1 this year without Louie Barry.
On my way now, I have my own questions in mind, but I don't mind asking for someone if it's an important question.
I.e., I'm not willing to ask what Charlie Methvens favourite football chant is.
CM only got the proper hump when Braziliance suggested that TC, KA and DK weren’t good enough to be starting. His reply was well that’s your opinion.
The issue being that the owners wanted a London club with a strong academy and therefore you can’t fully develop these players unless they get into the first team.
With the greatest respect to the players I mentioned, as I really like them, they just aren't. If our primary objective is promotion, which it should be, those lads shouldn't be starting. They'll improve by being around the first team and getting minutes and being subs. They wouldn't start for Birmingham or Bolton, so they shouldn't start here imo.
What he says is a good strategy in theory, but it's also a flawed one in current practice, as you'd never build a team strong enough for promotion. All the youth that would be good enough, would only be sold like Lookie, Konsa, Gomez etc. The only way you can truly utilise youth and play them in the teams is in the upper leagues, isn't realistic in league 1.
He was dismissive of your question about the transfer fees, and tried to make a fool of your maths, but it was a valid question. Our transfer budget wasn't significant and we didn't spend much.
He can say we spent double other league 1 teams but the stats online suggest we didn't and even if we did, it's not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly. He alluded to money being spent on Coventry but that's now been cleared up as no fee.
All in all, I think he talks well, and he's a good spokesman, he'd make an excellent politician, but there was a bit of dodging as expected, and their plan isn't a great one imho. I still have my doubts about them. A couple of billionaires in love with a football club, would have made more of an impact.
Finally, his comments about youth were wide of the mark, very wide. Young fans will be harder to retain if we stay in this league/remain bad at football, no amount of Chicken George or a free drink will change that. No offense chicken george.
Let's imagine Kanu starts scoring goals left right and centre. He will be off in January or in the summer depending on when he does it. That is the problem. We play these players until they get good and then they go pretty sharpish. We only still have Leaburn because he got injured a couple of times. Yes we get money for them but being in League One, we don't get what we should.
I think Anderson is likely to become a very good player. But he is learning and making his mistakes with us. Not sure how this really progresses us as a club as when he reaches a level higher clubs notice, he will be gone and he will likely want to go. In many cases these higher clubs are Championship looking for at league one so don't pay silly money. The system works better IMO in the championship. However there is the financial element where we could get £5m for Gomez quite a few years after we sold him, but we could still get nothing for him. But this is for a player we can sell to a Premier League club which isn't that often. I recall with Gomez we relied on his loyalty in signing a contract where he could have manufactured things to leave for far less.
Firstly, I have to admit I went in with a strong pre conceived idea on CM and having not been hugely impressed with GC when I heard him previously. Did those opinions change; a little.
Gavin leading with how he was disappointed that Thomas Sandgaard chose to sell was an odd admission/opening and immediately made me question his judgement generally. That aside however, he seemed genuine, very business like and is clearly a fan, there really is nothing to dislike and he came across as a sensible, trustworthy chap.
CM is pretty much exactly as I expected. I take a lot of what he says with a pinch of salt. They are clearly not talking seriously to the Duchatelet' s about buying The Valley if they have not even asked the price, mutterings of billionaires doing things differently is utter nonsense used to dodge a question.
What seems clear is that they have a plan. The investors have bought Charlton as we are a) a London club, b) have potential (although I hope none of them put any credence on the 1.2 million people who have Charlton as their nearest local club quoted more than once by CM) c) because of our academy and d) because they did not want to buy a PL club but wanted to create value - so we are an investment, but we knew that already.
The plan is not to spend our way to promotion but to improve the infrastructure of the club (which to be fair we have seen); to double down on our academy with more coaches etc, get us to 5th most productive in the country and then the PL clubs cannot ignore our right to be CAT1. Bring through youth to make up a significant part of the squad so the first team spend can be more thinly spread over fewer, better players. To be sustainable and create transfer dealing surpluses each year to ultimately end up like Brentford and Brighton, and to ultimately outperform our budget.
I am not personally convinced that plan will be successful as we lose too much each season for long term plans, and investors will not stay around throwing money forever into a pit. But at least their plan is better than Tommy Sandgaard's fantasy; Southgate's skull-duggary or RDs disgraceful ownership IMO.
Talk of a 4-5th biggest budget in L1 meaning we need to outperform our budget just for promotion from this tin pot league is not the stuff of dreams but good luck to them, at least they are putting building blocks in.
Thanks for the summaries all and obviously to Bromley Addicks for arranging. There are a lot of things wrong with our club but the fact we have fan groups arranging these things and players and board members willing to come along is a credit to us and something I hope we can continue for a long time
I really wish I could attend, but distance and health won't allow me to. I would like to ask, "leaving soundbites and platitudes to one side, what is the aim for this ownership, what are the milestones and what happens if they are not achieved in a reasonable timescale?" I don't want to hear about 5 yr plan nonsense, this club won't grow until we're out of this Division, and that needs to happen this/next season. Do they realise crowds will ONLY come back when we're playing attractive and winning football....fan zones won't cut it! Will anybody, maybe not in so many words ask this and follow up with secondary questions? Thanks
I answered above. Sustainsble growth within SCMP & we have the 4th largest playing budget.
We need to increase revenues and are by bringing back in house hospitality & the retail. I can’t recall the figures but revenue is up possibly 20% (did he say) and costs have been reduced by retaining less academy players that we don’t think will “make the grade” as one example.
Cutting costs in the academy, now where did I see this written down before they took over?
Funny that they denied it at the time but open to admitting it now. Even if they're attempting to justify.
CM actually said they had cut costs in the academy as the previous regime had kept a bloated U21 squad of players unlikely ever to make it, by reducing that number of players they could then focus more effort, attention, coaching and money on those that were left and whom they felt had the best chance of progression.
He was strong in his view the owners wanted to double down on the academy with a goal of making it the 5th most productive in the country (currently ranked 8-10th in productivity each year).
So his point was money was previously poorly spent and is now being more targeted and better spent. I couldn't disagree with any of what he said in the academy.
He can dress it up however he likes.
The fact is that he has reduced the budget for the academy. After denying they would do so before they took over.
My concern is that it has always been muted that a team has a style of play from youth to first team, with the way Jones likes to play football will the ethos of what has been coached for years in the Academy change ?
It would be very hard to coach players to play as crap as how Jones sets us up to play. He must ask them to forget everything they have ever learned about attacking play, set pieces and crossing.
On my way now, I have my own questions in mind, but I don't mind asking for someone if it's an important question.
I.e., I'm not willing to ask what Charlie Methvens favourite football chant is.
CM only got the proper hump when Braziliance suggested that TC, KA and DK weren’t good enough to be starting. His reply was well that’s your opinion.
The issue being that the owners wanted a London club with a strong academy and therefore you can’t fully develop these players unless they get into the first team.
With the greatest respect to the players I mentioned, as I really like them, they just aren't. If our primary objective is promotion, which it should be, those lads shouldn't be starting. They'll improve by being around the first team and getting minutes and being subs. They wouldn't start for Birmingham or Bolton, so they shouldn't start here imo.
What he says is a good strategy in theory, but it's also a flawed one in current practice, as you'd never build a team strong enough for promotion. All the youth that would be good enough, would only be sold like Lookie, Konsa, Gomez etc. The only way you can truly utilise youth and play them in the teams is in the upper leagues, isn't realistic in league 1.
He was dismissive of your question about the transfer fees, and tried to make a fool of your maths, but it was a valid question. Our transfer budget wasn't significant and we didn't spend much.
He can say we spent double other league 1 teams but the stats online suggest we didn't and even if we did, it's not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly. He alluded to money being spent on Coventry but that's now been cleared up as no fee.
All in all, I think he talks well, and he's a good spokesman, he'd make an excellent politician, but there was a bit of dodging as expected, and their plan isn't a great one imho. I still have my doubts about them. A couple of billionaires in love with a football club, would have made more of an impact.
Finally, his comments about youth were wide of the mark, very wide. Young fans will be harder to retain if we stay in this league/remain bad at football, no amount of Chicken George or a free drink will change that. No offense chicken george.
Not saying you are wrong (I agree with you on Kanu and Anderson), but our last promotion team had Phillips, Dijksteel, Aribo and Grant as regular starters and then Lapslie and Morgan squad players. It can be done
The difference is they were supplemented with genuine quality, Cullen, Bielek, Taylor - We don't have anyone who could lace their boots in our first team.
Which isn't the fault of Karoy, Kanu etc, it's the signings we made in the summer which aren't good enough. And indeed the choice not to bring in any loan players.
Yes we've also loaned rubbish, but we wouldn't have gone up without Cullen and Bielik, Stockport wouldn't be near the top of L1 this year without Louie Barry.
Kanu and Karoy aren't near KAG and Aribo in terms of quality either.
I really wish I could attend, but distance and health won't allow me to. I would like to ask, "leaving soundbites and platitudes to one side, what is the aim for this ownership, what are the milestones and what happens if they are not achieved in a reasonable timescale?" I don't want to hear about 5 yr plan nonsense, this club won't grow until we're out of this Division, and that needs to happen this/next season. Do they realise crowds will ONLY come back when we're playing attractive and winning football....fan zones won't cut it! Will anybody, maybe not in so many words ask this and follow up with secondary questions? Thanks
I answered above. Sustainsble growth within SCMP & we have the 4th largest playing budget.
We need to increase revenues and are by bringing back in house hospitality & the retail. I can’t recall the figures but revenue is up possibly 20% (did he say) and costs have been reduced by retaining less academy players that we don’t think will “make the grade” as one example.
Cutting costs in the academy, now where did I see this written down before they took over?
Funny that they denied it at the time but open to admitting it now. Even if they're attempting to justify.
CM actually said they had cut costs in the academy as the previous regime had kept a bloated U21 squad of players unlikely ever to make it, by reducing that number of players they could then focus more effort, attention, coaching and money on those that were left and whom they felt had the best chance of progression.
He was strong in his view the owners wanted to double down on the academy with a goal of making it the 5th most productive in the country (currently ranked 8-10th in productivity each year).
So his point was money was previously poorly spent and is now being more targeted and better spent. I couldn't disagree with any of what he said in the academy.
He can dress it up however he likes.
The fact is that he has reduced the budget for the academy. After denying they would do so before they took over.
Has he? If he talked about hiring new coaches is it not possible that they’ve just redeployed the budget in a different way?
On my way now, I have my own questions in mind, but I don't mind asking for someone if it's an important question.
I.e., I'm not willing to ask what Charlie Methvens favourite football chant is.
CM only got the proper hump when Braziliance suggested that TC, KA and DK weren’t good enough to be starting. His reply was well that’s your opinion.
The issue being that the owners wanted a London club with a strong academy and therefore you can’t fully develop these players unless they get into the first team.
With the greatest respect to the players I mentioned, as I really like them, they just aren't. If our primary objective is promotion, which it should be, those lads shouldn't be starting. They'll improve by being around the first team and getting minutes and being subs. They wouldn't start for Birmingham or Bolton, so they shouldn't start here imo.
What he says is a good strategy in theory, but it's also a flawed one in current practice, as you'd never build a team strong enough for promotion. All the youth that would be good enough, would only be sold like Lookie, Konsa, Gomez etc. The only way you can truly utilise youth and play them in the teams is in the upper leagues, isn't realistic in league 1.
He was dismissive of your question about the transfer fees, and tried to make a fool of your maths, but it was a valid question. Our transfer budget wasn't significant and we didn't spend much.
He can say we spent double other league 1 teams but the stats online suggest we didn't and even if we did, it's not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly. He alluded to money being spent on Coventry but that's now been cleared up as no fee.
All in all, I think he talks well, and he's a good spokesman, he'd make an excellent politician, but there was a bit of dodging as expected, and their plan isn't a great one imho. I still have my doubts about them. A couple of billionaires in love with a football club, would have made more of an impact.
Finally, his comments about youth were wide of the mark, very wide. Young fans will be harder to retain if we stay in this league/remain bad at football, no amount of Chicken George or a free drink will change that. No offense chicken george.
I agree 100%. I think they would say that the primary objective is promotion, as long as it is achieved within their budget, within SCMP and allowing academy players through to the first team squad and first team as soon as they think realistic (which will likely be before fans think is realistic). THESE ARE MY WORDS/ASSUMPTIONS, not what CM said.
Thanks to Covered end for being the conduit and Henry as well.
Shame I can't get to meetings in recent times due to personal circumstances but good to read the feed back.
It's no secret that I thought Daniel Kanu would progress this season after 23/24 when he scored 10 league goals (4 for Southend)
Is it confidence why his touch doesn't seem as good this season or the way we set up ? Once Leaburn established his self as the central striker in the 18's or 21's Kanu would take up a wider position sometimes on the left or right of Miles; not a winger per se but would sometimes get the ball by the touchline. Daniel still scored a hateful of goals as his timing and runs into the box were spot on.
As mentioned above if the qualities of Lyle Taylor, Bielek and Cullen 2018/19 were around, then Kanu, Anderson and Campbell would find it easier to progress with better passing ability around.
@Braziliance similar to me, you like having a soapbox and asking Questions; Good, you do that as others like to moan on line but stay mute when the opportunity knocks. I appreciate it probably came after the academy players were being discussed and really a question for Nathan Jones but who in our squad now would be starters in a team nailed on for a top 6 finish in League 1! Charlie and Gavin turned up after 3 defeats in a row, Poor old Stephen Henderson and I believe JBG turned up after 6 defeats in a row back in the day at Beckenham Cricket club !
After 10 games we normally have a better idea of our prospects and with CAFC yet again looking like we will be in the bottom half of the table at the 10 matches played, yet again it's Déjà vu. Pardon my French.
On my way now, I have my own questions in mind, but I don't mind asking for someone if it's an important question.
I.e., I'm not willing to ask what Charlie Methvens favourite football chant is.
CM only got the proper hump when Braziliance suggested that TC, KA and DK weren’t good enough to be starting. His reply was well that’s your opinion.
The issue being that the owners wanted a London club with a strong academy and therefore you can’t fully develop these players unless they get into the first team.
With the greatest respect to the players I mentioned, as I really like them, they just aren't. If our primary objective is promotion, which it should be, those lads shouldn't be starting. They'll improve by being around the first team and getting minutes and being subs. They wouldn't start for Birmingham or Bolton, so they shouldn't start here imo.
What he says is a good strategy in theory, but it's also a flawed one in current practice, as you'd never build a team strong enough for promotion. All the youth that would be good enough, would only be sold like Lookie, Konsa, Gomez etc. The only way you can truly utilise youth and play them in the teams is in the upper leagues, isn't realistic in league 1.
He was dismissive of your question about the transfer fees, and tried to make a fool of your maths, but it was a valid question. Our transfer budget wasn't significant and we didn't spend much.
He can say we spent double other league 1 teams but the stats online suggest we didn't and even if we did, it's not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly. He alluded to money being spent on Coventry but that's now been cleared up as no fee.
All in all, I think he talks well, and he's a good spokesman, he'd make an excellent politician, but there was a bit of dodging as expected, and their plan isn't a great one imho. I still have my doubts about them. A couple of billionaires in love with a football club, would have made more of an impact.
Finally, his comments about youth were wide of the mark, very wide. Young fans will be harder to retain if we stay in this league/remain bad at football, no amount of Chicken George or a free drink will change that. No offense chicken George.
" not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly."
Got to agree, and on the night nobody really pinned down them about this. CM pointed out that he reduced the playing salary bill at Sunderland year on year from £30 mill(?I think) to £5mill when they got promotion. I wanted to ask how when they went year on year from £8m to £6mill to £5mill how they sharpened their recruitment to the extent that they recruited quality players(for L1) What changes were implemented by scouts/data/manager/ people etc to produce this dramatic result?
I really wish I could attend, but distance and health won't allow me to. I would like to ask, "leaving soundbites and platitudes to one side, what is the aim for this ownership, what are the milestones and what happens if they are not achieved in a reasonable timescale?" I don't want to hear about 5 yr plan nonsense, this club won't grow until we're out of this Division, and that needs to happen this/next season. Do they realise crowds will ONLY come back when we're playing attractive and winning football....fan zones won't cut it! Will anybody, maybe not in so many words ask this and follow up with secondary questions? Thanks
I answered above. Sustainsble growth within SCMP & we have the 4th largest playing budget.
We need to increase revenues and are by bringing back in house hospitality & the retail. I can’t recall the figures but revenue is up possibly 20% (did he say) and costs have been reduced by retaining less academy players that we don’t think will “make the grade” as one example.
Cutting costs in the academy, now where did I see this written down before they took over?
Funny that they denied it at the time but open to admitting it now. Even if they're attempting to justify.
I'll expand by adding that he also said it meant more time & money would be spent on the players that they thought would make the grade.
It makes sense to me, but as ever it's how it works in practice and what the monetary figures are.
On my way now, I have my own questions in mind, but I don't mind asking for someone if it's an important question.
I.e., I'm not willing to ask what Charlie Methvens favourite football chant is.
CM only got the proper hump when Braziliance suggested that TC, KA and DK weren’t good enough to be starting. His reply was well that’s your opinion.
The issue being that the owners wanted a London club with a strong academy and therefore you can’t fully develop these players unless they get into the first team.
With the greatest respect to the players I mentioned, as I really like them, they just aren't. If our primary objective is promotion, which it should be, those lads shouldn't be starting. They'll improve by being around the first team and getting minutes and being subs. They wouldn't start for Birmingham or Bolton, so they shouldn't start here imo.
What he says is a good strategy in theory, but it's also a flawed one in current practice, as you'd never build a team strong enough for promotion. All the youth that would be good enough, would only be sold like Lookie, Konsa, Gomez etc. The only way you can truly utilise youth and play them in the teams is in the upper leagues, isn't realistic in league 1.
He was dismissive of your question about the transfer fees, and tried to make a fool of your maths, but it was a valid question. Our transfer budget wasn't significant and we didn't spend much.
He can say we spent double other league 1 teams but the stats online suggest we didn't and even if we did, it's not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly. He alluded to money being spent on Coventry but that's now been cleared up as no fee.
All in all, I think he talks well, and he's a good spokesman, he'd make an excellent politician, but there was a bit of dodging as expected, and their plan isn't a great one imho. I still have my doubts about them. A couple of billionaires in love with a football club, would have made more of an impact.
Finally, his comments about youth were wide of the mark, very wide. Young fans will be harder to retain if we stay in this league/remain bad at football, no amount of Chicken George or a free drink will change that. No offense chicken george.
Not saying you are wrong (I agree with you on Kanu and Anderson), but our last promotion team had Phillips, Dijksteel, Aribo and Grant as regular starters and then Lapslie and Morgan squad players. It can be done
That is true, but when you look at those academy products, they were genuinely top players. AMB is a top, top bloke, but he isn't on Phillips level, we don't have an academy level defender near Dijksteel at present, Aribo was an elite level league one player, we were very fortunate to have him, ditto Grant until we sold him. I'd say Lapslie and Morgan are the two at a similar level to our current crop, and shouldn't be playing for a club at the top end league 1.
The other big difference is when we did it last time, we had two young premier league loans in Cullen and Bielik who were probably the best two mids in the league, Lyle Taylor who was no doubt in my mind the best striker in the league, Patrick Bauer who was one of the top centre backs. We just had so much quality, arguably a lower end championship side.
Now look at this team and who is even close to that level? I'd say Lloyd Jones and Alex Mitchell have potential to replicate Bauers form, I don't see any of our midfielders living up to the standards of Cullen, Bielik, or, Aribo, it's not even worth discussing forward options I'd say, Lyle is on a different level to all of them.
So I agree with him that it's a good and sensible strategy in theory, but what happens when the youth aren't good enough, what happens when we have to sell the youth player etc. I think we are getting those answers right now.
Gavin Carter seems a nice man, very friendly and I don't get any bad vibes from him, my gut instinct with Charlie Methven, is like any politician, he's so well spoken, that it's very easy to just go along with what he says, I am still very skeptical and will remain that way until we see some consistency on the pitch and at Charlton. I appreciate them still attending and the people behind putting the meeting together, I did enjoy it.
Think more searching questions should be levelled at Jones at this point tbh. It's not like he's not had the backing
I agree. But someone could, indirectly, by asking Charlie about our transfer and wages budget for this season compared with Wrexham's. (Forget Birmingham, it's a grotesque aberration). Charlie may try to deflect by saying that actual fees and wages can never be known, but in truth he has a spreadsheet which gives him a very good idea.
Ask him, somebody,
We have the 4th largest playing budget (don’t know about Wrexham).
At least they have something in common with plenty of our fans who don’t know about Wrexham and happily proclaimed they wouldn’t be involved, may struggle and we’d finish above them
I meant I don't know/didn't ask about Wrexham. I'm pretty sure CM would know.
Thanks to Covered end for being the conduit and Henry as well.
Shame I can't get to meetings in recent times due to personal circumstances but good to read the feed back.
It's no secret that I thought Daniel Kanu would progress this season after 23/24 when he scored 10 league goals (4 for Southend)
Is it confidence why his touch doesn't seem as good this season or the way we set up ? Once Leaburn established his self as the central striker in the 18's or 21's Kanu would take up a wider position sometimes on the left or right of Miles; not a winger per se but would sometimes get the ball by the touchline. Daniel still scored a hateful of goals as his timing and runs into the box were spot on.
As mentioned above if the qualities of Lyle Taylor, Bielek and Cullen 2018/19 were around, then Kanu, Anderson and Campbell would find it easier to progress with better passing ability around.
@Braziliance similar to me, you like having a soapbox and asking Questions; Good, you do that as others like to moan on line but stay mute when the opportunity knocks. I appreciate it probably came after the academy players were being discussed and really a question for Nathan Jones but who in our squad now would be starters in a team nailed on for a top 6 finish in League 1! Charlie and Gavin turned up after 3 defeats in a row, Poor old Stephen Henderson and I believe JBG turned up after 6 defeats in a row back in the day at Beckenham Cricket club !
After 10 games we normally have a better idea of our prospects and with CAFC yet again looking like we will be in the bottom half of the table at the 10 matches played, yet again it's Déjà vu. Pardon my French.
This is a great point about DK in particular , when the U18s came down to Worthing in 2021 they set up in a nominal 433 with DK and TC wide of Leaburn but DKs movement was way more like a central striker. I do wonder if he'd benefit from another National League loan if the right club was interested , just to go and get some sharpness because I think there is a natural finisher there with him.
On my way now, I have my own questions in mind, but I don't mind asking for someone if it's an important question.
I.e., I'm not willing to ask what Charlie Methvens favourite football chant is.
CM only got the proper hump when Braziliance suggested that TC, KA and DK weren’t good enough to be starting. His reply was well that’s your opinion.
The issue being that the owners wanted a London club with a strong academy and therefore you can’t fully develop these players unless they get into the first team.
With the greatest respect to the players I mentioned, as I really like them, they just aren't. If our primary objective is promotion, which it should be, those lads shouldn't be starting. They'll improve by being around the first team and getting minutes and being subs. They wouldn't start for Birmingham or Bolton, so they shouldn't start here imo.
What he says is a good strategy in theory, but it's also a flawed one in current practice, as you'd never build a team strong enough for promotion. All the youth that would be good enough, would only be sold like Lookie, Konsa, Gomez etc. The only way you can truly utilise youth and play them in the teams is in the upper leagues, isn't realistic in league 1.
He was dismissive of your question about the transfer fees, and tried to make a fool of your maths, but it was a valid question. Our transfer budget wasn't significant and we didn't spend much.
He can say we spent double other league 1 teams but the stats online suggest we didn't and even if we did, it's not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly. He alluded to money being spent on Coventry but that's now been cleared up as no fee.
All in all, I think he talks well, and he's a good spokesman, he'd make an excellent politician, but there was a bit of dodging as expected, and their plan isn't a great one imho. I still have my doubts about them. A couple of billionaires in love with a football club, would have made more of an impact.
Finally, his comments about youth were wide of the mark, very wide. Young fans will be harder to retain if we stay in this league/remain bad at football, no amount of Chicken George or a free drink will change that. No offense chicken George.
" not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly."
Got to agree, and on the night nobody really pinned down them about this. CM pointed out that he reduced the playing salary bill at Sunderland year on year from £30 mill(?I think) to £5mill when they got promotion. I wanted to ask how when they went year on year from £8m to £6mill to £5mill how they sharpened their recruitment to the extent that they recruited quality players(for L1) What changes were implemented by scouts/data/manager/ people etc to produce this dramatic result?
I did put my arm up to ask but didn't get asked
The other thing is, I feel a lot of their objectives were contradictory, or, there was a wall in place to stop one happening.
They want cat1 status, higher powers won't let it be, so we need to climb the leagues.
Want to climb the leagues, but don't want to spend lots to do so, want to rely on youth and smart business.
To have these good youth players, you probably need to be a championship side at least, otherwise you run the risk of losing them cheap/real prospects usually don't find themselves at league1 sides, unless ths circumstances are exceptional, I.e. Aribo having no real academy background, ditto Lookman, Miles getting injured etc.
So then we need to look at the bigger issue, league1 Charlton. How do they want us to go up, increased revenue, they aim to do this by tapping into the catchment area and youth who Methven claimed 'aren't too bothered about the results.'
Good plan again, but, we won't get stragglers unless we are playing well, youth won't stick around when they have clubs like West Ham, Palace (ffs) and dare I say even Millwall a stones throw away. We are one of the worst performing London clubs, arguably the most.
How do we increase the match day experience? Improve the facilities, when are we doing that? They won't, because they don't want to upgrade the Valley until they own it.
When will they buy the Valley? Not any time soon, as the lease is very fair, and they don't think it's necessary.
Sorry for the long post, but my point is, it feels like anything they want to do, there's an excuse in play for not doing it.
Multi billionaire owners right, who have allegedly fell in love with our club, and are completely invested. So if that's the case, and you view it as a long term project, and want to improve facilities etc, surely you buy the Valley now and show intent so you can improve the facilities, which will get the ball rolling with other aspirations like match day revenue, new fans coming along etc.
If you gave me a billion, buying the Valley for 50 million, or whatever Roland quoted it before, is chump change to improve what I love. Then someone could argue that it's not my money, and it's a lot, which is fair. But if I was in love with something, 5% of my net worth would be easy to part with.
I could understand if they didn't want to buy the Valley, to save money, and use it on the first team to secure promotion, then buy the stadium when are in a better footballing position, but it feels to me as though they aren't rolling high with the money they have, and not owning the facilities is a massive stumbling block in extra revenue in their big medium to long term plans.
In summary, I don't believe they're as ambitious as Charlie and Gavin tried to portray. I think they will be, IF we find ourselves promoted. I am of the opinion right now, they're trying to do it a bit luckily, and similar to Sandgaard, are underestimating how much money you have to spend to get out of this league, typically speaking.
Sometimes it is about attacking pairings. Ahadme ought to be good at bringing his strike partner into the game but isn't. Kanu needs to be sniffing around the box but has to go looking for the ball which isn't what his game is about. I bet his confidence is totally shot now so a loan would seem sensible. Now if we got Ahadme for free, there isn't an issue, but the club haven't denied he was a £1m player so CM needs to explain what we saw in him. I posted on here when I first saw him in a friendly that I had my doubts about him.
I think given what is written on another forum and elsewhere on the internet that a question about our Asian minority investors, ACA would be appropriate, given they seemingly have announced they will not invest any further into the Belgium club Deinze they own outright leaving them on the brink of bankruptcy. Do they remain committed to us or trying to exit us too etc.
The investors invest proportionately. So a 20% investor puts in 20% etc. ACA are a small investor and their situation is not significant and not a great concern.
Cue the ceo of ACA suddenly representing all things cafc on every media outlet within 6 months.
For clarification, the way the discussion went ie it was reasonably brief. It was MY INTERPRETATION that it's not of massive significance/concern.
On my way now, I have my own questions in mind, but I don't mind asking for someone if it's an important question.
I.e., I'm not willing to ask what Charlie Methvens favourite football chant is.
CM only got the proper hump when Braziliance suggested that TC, KA and DK weren’t good enough to be starting. His reply was well that’s your opinion.
The issue being that the owners wanted a London club with a strong academy and therefore you can’t fully develop these players unless they get into the first team.
With the greatest respect to the players I mentioned, as I really like them, they just aren't. If our primary objective is promotion, which it should be, those lads shouldn't be starting. They'll improve by being around the first team and getting minutes and being subs. They wouldn't start for Birmingham or Bolton, so they shouldn't start here imo.
What he says is a good strategy in theory, but it's also a flawed one in current practice, as you'd never build a team strong enough for promotion. All the youth that would be good enough, would only be sold like Lookie, Konsa, Gomez etc. The only way you can truly utilise youth and play them in the teams is in the upper leagues, isn't realistic in league 1.
He was dismissive of your question about the transfer fees, and tried to make a fool of your maths, but it was a valid question. Our transfer budget wasn't significant and we didn't spend much.
He can say we spent double other league 1 teams but the stats online suggest we didn't and even if we did, it's not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly. He alluded to money being spent on Coventry but that's now been cleared up as no fee.
All in all, I think he talks well, and he's a good spokesman, he'd make an excellent politician, but there was a bit of dodging as expected, and their plan isn't a great one imho. I still have my doubts about them. A couple of billionaires in love with a football club, would have made more of an impact.
Finally, his comments about youth were wide of the mark, very wide. Young fans will be harder to retain if we stay in this league/remain bad at football, no amount of Chicken George or a free drink will change that. No offense chicken george.
Not saying you are wrong (I agree with you on Kanu and Anderson), but our last promotion team had Phillips, Dijksteel, Aribo and Grant as regular starters and then Lapslie and Morgan squad players. It can be done
That is true, but when you look at those academy products, they were genuinely top players. AMB is a top, top bloke, but he isn't on Phillips level, we don't have an academy level defender near Dijksteel at present, Aribo was an elite level league one player, we were very fortunate to have him, ditto Grant until we sold him. I'd say Lapslie and Morgan are the two at a similar level to our current crop, and shouldn't be playing for a club at the top end league 1.
The other big difference is when we did it last time, we had two young premier league loans in Cullen and Bielik who were probably the best two mids in the league, Lyle Taylor who was no doubt in my mind the best striker in the league, Patrick Bauer who was one of the top centre backs. We just had so much quality, arguably a lower end championship side.
Now look at this team and who is even close to that level? I'd say Lloyd Jones and Alex Mitchell have potential to replicate Bauers form, I don't see any of our midfielders living up to the standards of Cullen, Bielik, or, Aribo, it's not even worth discussing forward options I'd say, Lyle is on a different level to all of them.
So I agree with him that it's a good and sensible strategy in theory, but what happens when the youth aren't good enough, what happens when we have to sell the youth player etc. I think we are getting those answers right now.
Gavin Carter seems a nice man, very friendly and I don't get any bad vibes from him, my gut instinct with Charlie Methven, is like any politician, he's so well spoken, that it's very easy to just go along with what he says, I am still very skeptical and will remain that way until we see some consistency on the pitch and at Charlton. I appreciate them still attending and the people behind putting the meeting together, I did enjoy it.
In Leaburn and Zach Mitchell I think we have two academy players with the potential to be as good as some of those who played regularly in our promotion seasons.
Trouble is Leaburn has had a serious injury and Mitchell being a CB will find it harder to break through, so they’ve not yet properly shown it.
Before 18/19 though Aribo wasn’t a regular or a goalscorer. Bielik was inconsistent in his first few months. Dijksteel rotated a lot with Solly that year. Phillips didn’t play until January. Grant didn’t show his potential until his loan with Crawley the previous year. So I can see the argument for playing youngsters and giving them time to develop.
Anderson is similar to Lapslie but I think has more potential. Campbell suffers from our formation and style of play, he’d get on the ball more in a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 based more on possession.
If we had players as good as Taylor, Cullen, Bauer etc they’d be the difference to turn defeats into draws and draws into wins, and the academy players would look better for it.
I am not surprised by the claim that we have the 4th biggest playing budget in the league. They will have had from the EFL a breakdown of all clubs ‘ budgets from last season and then have made an educated guess about those clubs new to L1 this season. That’s basically how all clubs do it.
Of course how you use that budget is another matter entirely. But if they say that this is what they’ve planned for, you can assume anything below 6th will be seen as a failure by Jones. And obviously 13th a cause for concern if we don’t start winning again soon. But I’m sorry, anyone on here who disputes that this is the budget based on their own little dabbling with Transfermarkt needs to have a word with themselves. Its the football equivalent of “doing your own research” on Covid, and ending up drinking bleach.
My concern is that it has always been muted that a team has a style of play from youth to first team, with the way Jones likes to play football will the ethos of what has been coached for years in the Academy change ?
I've been thinking the same, I'm pretty sure that Jones has said he wants all the youth to play in the same style as the first team so that they're "ready made" for the step up to the first team as & when they make the break through.
I wasn’t there and didn’t hear what was said, but I will make two observations.
Retail revenue is bound to be up sharply, because the effect of taking it in-house is to put all sales - and cost of sales - on the books. Previously the club received only a percentage based on turnover. I would expect sales also to be up given Castore were useless, but that’s not the same thing.
Secondly, the planning protection for The Valley is important and valuable but it is not absolute. Ultimately, planning decisions are determined against the national framework as well as local policy, if necessary over the council’s head, so in a situation where Charlton were not playing at The Valley and not looking to play at The Valley, Greenwich’s support would not be enough in itself.
it would likely be a huge public fight but the outcome cannot be guaranteed, so it is not true that the site has no sale value. It certainly limits it, and as previously explored it is a complicated site anyway.
The club’s problem is that the lease now has only ten years to run. Residential leases become a problem for mortgages under 70 years. Commercial leases are different but no one will be investing significantly in a property on the current lease. Securing a long lease is sensible but it will come at a premium.
With Aribo it's true he had no academy career with a pro club but the 3 years he spent with Kinetic Academy he received training from one coach who went on to Man City's under 16's and another coach who has done one to one coaching with Chelsea and Arsenal 1st team player's. Lookman played for Waterloo and kept being told he was too small as A trialist !
As most academy boys don't become full time professionals just part-time the school education is really important even if many don't appreciate this at the time. Charlton appear to be one of the better academies for the off field education no doubt helped by the wise words of Steve Avory over the last 20 years.
Over the last year you hardly hear a whisper about cafc 18 to 21 years being in demand; before his last injury only Miles Leaburn.
Mason Burstow was snapped up after 2 league goals in 7. His all round game wasn't great and he came back on loan on 10 to 12 grand a week and scored no goals in 20 apps. He has had wage increases since now he is 21. Only 1 goal in 20 at Sunderland and no goals in 5 for Hull on loan.
This is the catch-22 position for CAFC young players. They leave for next to nothing if not good enough. Mainly not enough if they are top player's: 3.5 million for Joe Gomez *which Liverpool boasted about when CAFC just said the add on will bring in millions. Joe is still there so we are still waiting for the 45 million move somewhere and Charlton getting their percentage.
Personally I want our youngsters to be decent to be in the team but not outstanding as they leave too soon. This is just my view not the owners obviously.
I know the idea is to sell at least one decent youngster a season so the academy is self sufficient but at the moment our over 18's are struggling to be noticed even in the mediocre 3rd tier and the amount you receive for the younger academy boys is peanuts.
* I understand it was difficult for CAFC as that was the arrangement with Joe, his dad and his agent.
On my way now, I have my own questions in mind, but I don't mind asking for someone if it's an important question.
I.e., I'm not willing to ask what Charlie Methvens favourite football chant is.
CM only got the proper hump when Braziliance suggested that TC, KA and DK weren’t good enough to be starting. His reply was well that’s your opinion.
The issue being that the owners wanted a London club with a strong academy and therefore you can’t fully develop these players unless they get into the first team.
With the greatest respect to the players I mentioned, as I really like them, they just aren't. If our primary objective is promotion, which it should be, those lads shouldn't be starting. They'll improve by being around the first team and getting minutes and being subs. They wouldn't start for Birmingham or Bolton, so they shouldn't start here imo.
What he says is a good strategy in theory, but it's also a flawed one in current practice, as you'd never build a team strong enough for promotion. All the youth that would be good enough, would only be sold like Lookie, Konsa, Gomez etc. The only way you can truly utilise youth and play them in the teams is in the upper leagues, isn't realistic in league 1.
He was dismissive of your question about the transfer fees, and tried to make a fool of your maths, but it was a valid question. Our transfer budget wasn't significant and we didn't spend much.
He can say we spent double other league 1 teams but the stats online suggest we didn't and even if we did, it's not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly. He alluded to money being spent on Coventry but that's now been cleared up as no fee.
All in all, I think he talks well, and he's a good spokesman, he'd make an excellent politician, but there was a bit of dodging as expected, and their plan isn't a great one imho. I still have my doubts about them. A couple of billionaires in love with a football club, would have made more of an impact.
Finally, his comments about youth were wide of the mark, very wide. Young fans will be harder to retain if we stay in this league/remain bad at football, no amount of Chicken George or a free drink will change that. No offense chicken george.
Not saying you are wrong (I agree with you on Kanu and Anderson), but our last promotion team had Phillips, Dijksteel, Aribo and Grant as regular starters and then Lapslie and Morgan squad players. It can be done
That is true, but when you look at those academy products, they were genuinely top players. AMB is a top, top bloke, but he isn't on Phillips level, we don't have an academy level defender near Dijksteel at present, Aribo was an elite level league one player, we were very fortunate to have him, ditto Grant until we sold him. I'd say Lapslie and Morgan are the two at a similar level to our current crop, and shouldn't be playing for a club at the top end league 1.
The other big difference is when we did it last time, we had two young premier league loans in Cullen and Bielik who were probably the best two mids in the league, Lyle Taylor who was no doubt in my mind the best striker in the league, Patrick Bauer who was one of the top centre backs. We just had so much quality, arguably a lower end championship side.
Now look at this team and who is even close to that level? I'd say Lloyd Jones and Alex Mitchell have potential to replicate Bauers form, I don't see any of our midfielders living up to the standards of Cullen, Bielik, or, Aribo, it's not even worth discussing forward options I'd say, Lyle is on a different level to all of them.
So I agree with him that it's a good and sensible strategy in theory, but what happens when the youth aren't good enough, what happens when we have to sell the youth player etc. I think we are getting those answers right now.
Gavin Carter seems a nice man, very friendly and I don't get any bad vibes from him, my gut instinct with Charlie Methven, is like any politician, he's so well spoken, that it's very easy to just go along with what he says, I am still very skeptical and will remain that way until we see some consistency on the pitch and at Charlton. I appreciate them still attending and the people behind putting the meeting together, I did enjoy it.
In Leaburn and Zach Mitchell I think we have two academy players with the potential to be as good as some of those who played regularly in our promotion seasons.
Trouble is Leaburn has had a serious injury and Mitchell being a CB will find it harder to break through, so they’ve not yet properly shown it.
Before 18/19 though Aribo wasn’t a regular or a goalscorer. Bielik was inconsistent in his first few months. Dijksteel rotated a lot with Solly that year. Phillips didn’t play until January. Grant didn’t show his potential until his loan with Crawley the previous year. So I can see the argument for playing youngsters and giving them time to develop.
Anderson is similar to Lapslie but I think has more potential. Campbell suffers from our formation and style of play, he’d get on the ball more in a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 based more on possession.
If we had players as good as Taylor, Cullen, Bauer etc they’d be the difference to turn defeats into draws and draws into wins, and the academy players would look better for it.
Agree with your points but the last paragraph says it all, we don't have the quality around the squad. There's too much pressure on young players to perform to save money.
The main positive for me, was Nathan Jones having their backing. Now they need to back him properly by taking some risks and buying the good players in this league, and not players over the hill.
My concern is that it has always been muted that a team has a style of play from youth to first team, with the way Jones likes to play football will the ethos of what has been coached for years in the Academy change ?
I've been thinking the same, I'm pretty sure that Jones has said he wants all the youth to play in the same style as the first team so that they're "ready made" for the step up to the first team as & when they make the break through.
Pretty much every club does the same - not peculiar to Jones (I know you didn't say that). It should certainly apply to the U18s/U21s and I'm pretty sure Citeh's youth teams don't play Pulis Ball
The $64,000 question is whether or not that playing style is going to be effective in us being promotion candidates.
On my way now, I have my own questions in mind, but I don't mind asking for someone if it's an important question.
I.e., I'm not willing to ask what Charlie Methvens favourite football chant is.
CM only got the proper hump when Braziliance suggested that TC, KA and DK weren’t good enough to be starting. His reply was well that’s your opinion.
The issue being that the owners wanted a London club with a strong academy and therefore you can’t fully develop these players unless they get into the first team.
With the greatest respect to the players I mentioned, as I really like them, they just aren't. If our primary objective is promotion, which it should be, those lads shouldn't be starting. They'll improve by being around the first team and getting minutes and being subs. They wouldn't start for Birmingham or Bolton, so they shouldn't start here imo.
What he says is a good strategy in theory, but it's also a flawed one in current practice, as you'd never build a team strong enough for promotion. All the youth that would be good enough, would only be sold like Lookie, Konsa, Gomez etc. The only way you can truly utilise youth and play them in the teams is in the upper leagues, isn't realistic in league 1.
He was dismissive of your question about the transfer fees, and tried to make a fool of your maths, but it was a valid question. Our transfer budget wasn't significant and we didn't spend much.
He can say we spent double other league 1 teams but the stats online suggest we didn't and even if we did, it's not much of a brag anyway as we spent it poorly. He alluded to money being spent on Coventry but that's now been cleared up as no fee.
All in all, I think he talks well, and he's a good spokesman, he'd make an excellent politician, but there was a bit of dodging as expected, and their plan isn't a great one imho. I still have my doubts about them. A couple of billionaires in love with a football club, would have made more of an impact.
Finally, his comments about youth were wide of the mark, very wide. Young fans will be harder to retain if we stay in this league/remain bad at football, no amount of Chicken George or a free drink will change that. No offense chicken George.
I imagine our monied owners we sold a vision of what a good and healthy academy should look like and what it can do for a club. I don't think they'd have had it on their shopping list, they'll have been given it by CM and others in our SMT. Anyway, are TC, KA & DK good enough? I kind of agree and disagree with you on that. I think TC and KA are good enough to start and play a role in our L1 squad.......... but not both at the same time or with DK. I'd like to see only one of them starting, I think having 2 or more of them on the pitch weakens the team too much. I think the other players find it too much to play with more than one inexperienced guy. I don't see this as the fault of our academy guys, I see it more as a consequence of not having enough other quality individuals to keep us on top of the game......... our main 3 academy guys play in midfield or up front and we I don't think we have enough quality or pace in those areas of the squad to compensate. It would be different if TC, KA and DK were as impactful as some of our other academy alumni have been but I don't think they are. I'm glad too that Chuks is in the last year of his contract, he must be eating up a fair chunk of the forwards budget. Perhaps without him we have been able to keep Alfie or at least shortly we'll be able to use his money to try and give Miles a decent new contract or get another good goalscorer?
Comments
Yes we've also loaned rubbish, but we wouldn't have gone up without Cullen and Bielik, Stockport wouldn't be near the top of L1 this year without Louie Barry.
I think Anderson is likely to become a very good player. But he is learning and making his mistakes with us. Not sure how this really progresses us as a club as when he reaches a level higher clubs notice, he will be gone and he will likely want to go. In many cases these higher clubs are Championship looking for at league one so don't pay silly money. The system works better IMO in the championship. However there is the financial element where we could get £5m for Gomez quite a few years after we sold him, but we could still get nothing for him. But this is for a player we can sell to a Premier League club which isn't that often. I recall with Gomez we relied on his loyalty in signing a contract where he could have manufactured things to leave for far less.
Firstly, I have to admit I went in with a strong pre conceived idea on CM and having not been hugely impressed with GC when I heard him previously. Did those opinions change; a little.
Gavin leading with how he was disappointed that Thomas Sandgaard chose to sell was an odd admission/opening and immediately made me question his judgement generally. That aside however, he seemed genuine, very business like and is clearly a fan, there really is nothing to dislike and he came across as a sensible, trustworthy chap.
CM is pretty much exactly as I expected. I take a lot of what he says with a pinch of salt. They are clearly not talking seriously to the Duchatelet' s about buying The Valley if they have not even asked the price, mutterings of billionaires doing things differently is utter nonsense used to dodge a question.
What seems clear is that they have a plan. The investors have bought Charlton as we are a) a London club, b) have potential (although I hope none of them put any credence on the 1.2 million people who have Charlton as their nearest local club quoted more than once by CM) c) because of our academy and d) because they did not want to buy a PL club but wanted to create value - so we are an investment, but we knew that already.
The plan is not to spend our way to promotion but to improve the infrastructure of the club (which to be fair we have seen); to double down on our academy with more coaches etc, get us to 5th most productive in the country and then the PL clubs cannot ignore our right to be CAT1. Bring through youth to make up a significant part of the squad so the first team spend can be more thinly spread over fewer, better players. To be sustainable and create transfer dealing surpluses each year to ultimately end up like Brentford and Brighton, and to ultimately outperform our budget.
I am not personally convinced that plan will be successful as we lose too much each season for long term plans, and investors will not stay around throwing money forever into a pit. But at least their plan is better than Tommy Sandgaard's fantasy; Southgate's skull-duggary or RDs disgraceful ownership IMO.
Talk of a 4-5th biggest budget in L1 meaning we need to outperform our budget just for promotion from this tin pot league is not the stuff of dreams but good luck to them, at least they are putting building blocks in.
The fact is that he has reduced the budget for the academy. After denying they would do so before they took over.
I think they would say that the primary objective is promotion, as long as it is achieved within their budget, within SCMP and allowing academy players through to the first team squad and first team as soon as they think realistic (which will likely be before fans think is realistic).
THESE ARE MY WORDS/ASSUMPTIONS, not what CM said.
I appreciate it probably came after the academy players were being discussed and really a question for Nathan Jones but who in our squad now would be starters in a team nailed on for a top 6 finish in League 1!
Charlie and Gavin turned up after 3 defeats in a row,
Poor old Stephen Henderson and I believe JBG turned up after 6 defeats in a row back in the day at Beckenham Cricket club !
After 10 games we normally have a better idea of our prospects and with CAFC yet again looking like we will be in the bottom half of the table at the 10 matches played, yet again it's Déjà vu.
Pardon my French.
Got to agree, and on the night nobody really pinned down them about this.
CM pointed out that he reduced the playing salary bill at Sunderland year on year from £30 mill(?I think) to £5mill when they got promotion.
I wanted to ask how when they went year on year from £8m to £6mill to £5mill how they sharpened their recruitment to the extent that they recruited quality players(for L1)
What changes were implemented by scouts/data/manager/ people etc to produce this dramatic result?
I did put my arm up to ask but didn't get asked
It makes sense to me, but as ever it's how it works in practice and what the monetary figures are.
The other big difference is when we did it last time, we had two young premier league loans in Cullen and Bielik who were probably the best two mids in the league, Lyle Taylor who was no doubt in my mind the best striker in the league, Patrick Bauer who was one of the top centre backs. We just had so much quality, arguably a lower end championship side.
Now look at this team and who is even close to that level? I'd say Lloyd Jones and Alex Mitchell have potential to replicate Bauers form, I don't see any of our midfielders living up to the standards of Cullen, Bielik, or, Aribo, it's not even worth discussing forward options I'd say, Lyle is on a different level to all of them.
So I agree with him that it's a good and sensible strategy in theory, but what happens when the youth aren't good enough, what happens when we have to sell the youth player etc. I think we are getting those answers right now.
Gavin Carter seems a nice man, very friendly and I don't get any bad vibes from him, my gut instinct with Charlie Methven, is like any politician, he's so well spoken, that it's very easy to just go along with what he says, I am still very skeptical and will remain that way until we see some consistency on the pitch and at Charlton. I appreciate them still attending and the people behind putting the meeting together, I did enjoy it.
I'm pretty sure CM would know.
This is a great point about DK in particular , when the U18s came down to Worthing in 2021 they set up in a nominal 433 with DK and TC wide of Leaburn but DKs movement was way more like a central striker. I do wonder if he'd benefit from another National League loan if the right club was interested , just to go and get some sharpness because I think there is a natural finisher there with him.
They want cat1 status, higher powers won't let it be, so we need to climb the leagues.
Want to climb the leagues, but don't want to spend lots to do so, want to rely on youth and smart business.
To have these good youth players, you probably need to be a championship side at least, otherwise you run the risk of losing them cheap/real prospects usually don't find themselves at league1 sides, unless ths circumstances are exceptional, I.e. Aribo having no real academy background, ditto Lookman, Miles getting injured etc.
So then we need to look at the bigger issue, league1 Charlton. How do they want us to go up, increased revenue, they aim to do this by tapping into the catchment area and youth who Methven claimed 'aren't too bothered about the results.'
Good plan again, but, we won't get stragglers unless we are playing well, youth won't stick around when they have clubs like West Ham, Palace (ffs) and dare I say even Millwall a stones throw away. We are one of the worst performing London clubs, arguably the most.
How do we increase the match day experience? Improve the facilities, when are we doing that? They won't, because they don't want to upgrade the Valley until they own it.
When will they buy the Valley? Not any time soon, as the lease is very fair, and they don't think it's necessary.
...
Multi billionaire owners right, who have allegedly fell in love with our club, and are completely invested. So if that's the case, and you view it as a long term project, and want to improve facilities etc, surely you buy the Valley now and show intent so you can improve the facilities, which will get the ball rolling with other aspirations like match day revenue, new fans coming along etc.
If you gave me a billion, buying the Valley for 50 million, or whatever Roland quoted it before, is chump change to improve what I love. Then someone could argue that it's not my money, and it's a lot, which is fair. But if I was in love with something, 5% of my net worth would be easy to part with.
I could understand if they didn't want to buy the Valley, to save money, and use it on the first team to secure promotion, then buy the stadium when are in a better footballing position, but it feels to me as though they aren't rolling high with the money they have, and not owning the facilities is a massive stumbling block in extra revenue in their big medium to long term plans.
In summary, I don't believe they're as ambitious as Charlie and Gavin tried to portray. I think they will be, IF we find ourselves promoted. I am of the opinion right now, they're trying to do it a bit luckily, and similar to Sandgaard, are underestimating how much money you have to spend to get out of this league, typically speaking.
It was MY INTERPRETATION that it's not of massive significance/concern.
Trouble is Leaburn has had a serious injury and Mitchell being a CB will find it harder to break through, so they’ve not yet properly shown it.
Before 18/19 though Aribo wasn’t a regular or a goalscorer. Bielik was inconsistent in his first few months. Dijksteel rotated a lot with Solly that year. Phillips didn’t play until January. Grant didn’t show his potential until his loan with Crawley the previous year. So I can see the argument for playing youngsters and giving them time to develop.
Anderson is similar to Lapslie but I think has more potential. Campbell suffers from our formation and style of play, he’d get on the ball more in a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 based more on possession.
If we had players as good as Taylor, Cullen, Bauer etc they’d be the difference to turn defeats into draws and draws into wins, and the academy players would look better for it.
But I’m sorry, anyone on here who disputes that this is the budget based on their own little dabbling with Transfermarkt needs to have a word with themselves. Its the football equivalent of “doing your own research” on Covid, and ending up drinking bleach.
Retail revenue is bound to be up sharply, because the effect of taking it in-house is to put all sales - and cost of sales - on the books. Previously the club received only a percentage based on turnover. I would expect sales also to be up given Castore were useless, but that’s not the same thing.
Secondly, the planning protection for The Valley is important and valuable but it is not absolute. Ultimately, planning decisions are determined against the national framework as well as local policy, if necessary over the council’s head, so in a situation where Charlton were not playing at The Valley and not looking to play at The Valley, Greenwich’s support would not be enough in itself.
it would likely be a huge public fight but the outcome cannot be guaranteed, so it is not true that the site has no sale value. It certainly limits it, and as previously explored it is a complicated site anyway.
As most academy boys don't become full time professionals just part-time the school education is really important even if many don't appreciate this at the time. Charlton appear to be one of the better academies for the off field education no doubt helped by the wise words of Steve Avory over the last 20 years.
Over the last year you hardly hear a whisper about cafc 18 to 21 years being in demand; before his last injury only Miles Leaburn.
Mason Burstow was snapped up after 2 league goals in 7. His all round game wasn't great and he came back on loan on 10 to 12 grand a week and scored no goals in 20 apps. He has had wage increases since now he is 21.
Only 1 goal in 20 at Sunderland and no goals in 5 for Hull on loan.
This is the catch-22 position for CAFC young players.
They leave for next to nothing if not good enough.
Mainly not enough if they are top player's: 3.5 million for Joe Gomez *which Liverpool boasted about when CAFC just said the add on will bring in millions.
Joe is still there so we are still waiting for the 45 million move somewhere and Charlton getting their percentage.
Personally I want our youngsters to be decent to be in the team but not outstanding as they leave too soon.
This is just my view not the owners obviously.
I know the idea is to sell at least one decent youngster a season so the academy is self sufficient but at the moment our over 18's are struggling to be noticed even in the mediocre 3rd tier and the amount you receive for the younger academy boys is peanuts.
* I understand it was difficult for CAFC as that was the arrangement with Joe, his dad and his agent.
The main positive for me, was Nathan Jones having their backing. Now they need to back him properly by taking some risks and buying the good players in this league, and not players over the hill.
Anyway, are TC, KA & DK good enough? I kind of agree and disagree with you on that. I think TC and KA are good enough to start and play a role in our L1 squad.......... but not both at the same time or with DK. I'd like to see only one of them starting, I think having 2 or more of them on the pitch weakens the team too much. I think the other players find it too much to play with more than one inexperienced guy. I don't see this as the fault of our academy guys, I see it more as a consequence of not having enough other quality individuals to keep us on top of the game......... our main 3 academy guys play in midfield or up front and we I don't think we have enough quality or pace in those areas of the squad to compensate.
It would be different if TC, KA and DK were as impactful as some of our other academy alumni have been but I don't think they are.
I'm glad too that Chuks is in the last year of his contract, he must be eating up a fair chunk of the forwards budget. Perhaps without him we have been able to keep Alfie or at least shortly we'll be able to use his money to try and give Miles a decent new contract or get another good goalscorer?