Forest Green revealed the energy bill for their stadium last season was around £90,000 and they expect that figure to triple
I think we will see some teams kick off early on Saturdays in the winter for this reason. I think in the covid year a few teams did (Gillingham I think?) it to save a few pennies but with the increasing costs I think we will see more of it
Valley Gold contributes by financially supporting our very successful academy. Is there any reason, legal or otherwise, why a scheme couldn’t be introduced by fans and agreed with TS, I don’t know, say, Addicks Aces for the sole purpose of supporting the acquisition and remuneration of our playing squad? Not a great time to introduce such a thing for most, perhaps, but if such a collection of funds could be guaranteed as ‘additional to a transparent budget’ rather than ‘substitutional’, I am sure that a fair number of fans, particularly those with some disposable income they may use for other entertainment purposes may be willing to contribute. £150k additional budget would land a pretty competitive player at this level per season. Just a thought on whether us die hards can do anything more to improve our chances of going somewhere sometime soon, as it would appear on the face of it, that our current owner cannot sustain their involvement at current run/loss rate.
I always thought the reason we didn't really protest against the spivs is it was obvious they had no money and were trying to sell the club so what would be protesting for? To get them to do what they were trying to do? With Roland we were trying to get him to sell which he didn't really do. Instead he made a terrible business decision in offloading the playing part of the club to a bunch of crooks with an almost criminal lack of dilligence and as Airman has said, his shadow is still hanging over us.
The question is, is Sandgaard trying to drastically cut costs because he has realised he can't succeed or is he genuinely trying to make us profitable in League One? I don't think he can really believe that is possible but the cost cutting is most likely part of trying to offload a club with no real assets. So as that is the case, not sure what good protests against him would do, much as the spivs. I think this is clearly a decision that has been made relatively recently, as why appoint Garner if you were looking to get out?
If a case could be made for further protests, it would probably be back to Duchatelet but we gave that our best shot and the bloke is as mad as a hatter so it would almost certainly be a waste of our time and money. We have to hope somebody comes in. I think there is a lot of untapped potential in terms of growing the club but it has to be somebody with reasonably deep pockets. If we were to get to the promised land, I think the club would be very sellable given its location and catchment area and that is where the riches lie.
Unfortunately I think RDs deal was a brilliant one, for himself, he kept everything of value and dumped the loss making business.
Awful for us though.
Don’t agree. He knew he was on the hook for the £7m loans if the club went bust and it’s a lot easier for him to collect rent than spend five to ten years trying to redevelop a site which will always be problematic due to access.
So he does nothing, collects rent with little to no risk of the club going bust. He knows someone will almost certainly always come in and save the day.
a brilliant deal, it’s indisputable.
But what happens if Sandgaard - who is an unusual character - doesn’t appear on the scene. In all likelihood the club goes into administration and the £7m falls on Roland. Unlike others I am confident that the club gets picked up from admin and RD then has to deal with the new owners - or not - on realistic terms. He doesn’t get to develop the ground to recoup his losses so it’s up to him if he prefers no deal.
This is why some of us came to believe admin was an option in 2020. Literally dozens of league clubs have entered into it since the 1980s and all have survived, most without the need for phoenix clubs. No club of Charlton’s size has ever had to go down that route.
The main unprotected creditor was Roland bloody Duchatelet. Why would we want to protect him?
i am not saying it was a good option, just that it may prove to have been the least worst. It is complicated by the stadium split but that’s not a unique issue. Talk of “oblivion” is overstated when you had multiple parties willing to pay tens of millions to acquire the club.
Now accepting the above came with a risk, of whatever scale you choose to believe, you can argue Sandgaard removed it. But he has not resolved the problem. The club is much less likely to go into administration under him than ESI because he is the main creditor, so arguably his ownership, while well intended, has made the strategic position worse.
The ESI deal was not a secure one for RD - I agree he is in a better position with TS. But is the latter’s deal any good for the club?
Apologies for banging on about Admin and I know its academic now, but ESI would have run out of money, say October time, at which point would they have either placed us into Admin by choice, or been forced to and I'm not sure whose decision that would have been, Roland being the main Creditor owed his £50M, within 2years was it? I forget.
Pulling a Club out of Administration is a different proposition to what Thomas did, but as Roland held title to the Valley and Sparrows Lane, Andrew Barclay or A.N. Other would still have had to contend with buying that off him at an unrealistic price. So without Thomas, it's still unlikely we'd have had Barclay running the show now.
It might however have been some individual/consortium prepared to pay silly money to Roland, or failing that, prepared to take on the running of the Club stripped of assets, including the better players who'd probably have to be sold off during the Administration Process, in which case it's arguable whether we'd be better off now. We finished seventh, but with a weakened squad and a points deduction, we might have had a very grim season.
Does that look about right to you? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I’m not sure but I think if you go into administration then an administrator is appointed whose sole role is to obtain the largest amount of money for the creditors, in our case RD through his loans to the club’s parent company.
I do not recall where the £7m of ex-director loans landed on administration although think they took out the first £7m of any price realised for the Valley and Sparrows Lane.
So if tou add together the playing staff (generously a positive value but short term asset) plus the ongoing deficit of income vs outgoings (inc player wages) you would end up with a perpetual ongoing loss (occasionally offset by academy sales which are inherently uncertain).
With the best will in the world what Sandgaard owns currently is an investment potential with likely short and medium term negative value and a potentially long term negative value even in the premier league.
As an investment proposition I would be looking for the sort of speculative investor who ploughs loads into startups that regularly look perform the equivalent of genetically modifying geese such that the shell, albumen and yolk of the egg defy nature and become solid gold.
Seriously large and accessible pockets of cash would be needed to take us back to the premier league. I worked for 8 years for Bob Ratcliffe but since he loved to work with his brother Jim, ans heading up the Ineos football division, we have t spoken and he looks a lot wealthier than even when I sat 10 feet from him every day.
Unfortunately we are a long way from Chelsea who they support and Kensington where they live. Still Jim and Bob would probably buy up half of blackheath, make Charlton a QE line spir from City airport and through London to Heathrow possibly just for kicks and to aim to piss off the new Chelsea owners 😂
Valley Gold contributes by financially supporting our very successful academy. Is there any reason, legal or otherwise, why a scheme couldn’t be introduced by fans and agreed with TS, I don’t know, say, Addicks Aces for the sole purpose of supporting the acquisition and remuneration of our playing squad? Not a great time to introduce such a thing for most, perhaps, but if such a collection of funds could be guaranteed as ‘additional to a transparent budget’ rather than ‘substitutional’, I am sure that a fair number of fans, particularly those with some disposable income they may use for other entertainment purposes may be willing to contribute. £150k additional budget would land a pretty competitive player at this level per season. Just a thought on whether us die hards can do anything more to improve our chances of going somewhere sometime soon, as it would appear on the face of it, that our current owner cannot sustain their involvement at current run/loss rate.
It's a cool idea, but something that would naturally struggle to be sustainable and, with the financial hardships many of us are currently enduring, would not go down too well. With ticket prices on the up and an owner that could match anything fans raise, without batting too much of an eyelid, it feels a small plaster to a major wound of a problem.
Football club ownership, on the whole, has become the playground of the ultra rich, where a promoted club from the Championship can spend over £100 million on trying to stay in the Premier League. Even in the relative modesty of L1, everything remains on the up. You do need to significantly speculate to accumulate to play this particular financial game, and there's a lot more losers than winners when total investment is considered. Only a relatively small amount of clubs would be profitable, and even then, those clubs may not be successful in traditional progress up the leagues. Even clubs like Peterborough who have had a decent record of transfer sale profit need to keep reinvesting to try and return to the Championship.
I don't think anyone should come into ownership at English football at a L1/L2 level and expect anything less than massive, sustained investment over multiple years with very little return, if success on the pitch is the target. I think TS thought it would be easier here and we were going to go straight up with NA in charge. The lack of backing for Garner for players that demand a fee just highlights his hesitance and likely eventual route away from the club in the not too distant future, imho.
As an investment proposition I would be looking for the sort of speculative investor who ploughs loads into startups that regularly look perform the equivalent of genetically modifying geese such that the shell, albumen and yolk of the egg defy nature and become solid gold.
This was kinda my point about an angel investor/new owner that would invest regularly for what we needed, shake off the ~£8-10M (plus extra for players) per year as something that is just required and back the manager in the transfer market for whatever they need. If you only care about success, the cost is relatively irrelevant. The sad thing is that when you stop the investment, the wheels will just spin and spin and you just get stuck in the mud that is L1. I haven't written off this season personally, but at a strategic level, this is how it feels.
Continued investment with no guaranteed (or a highly volatile) return is what makes even people worth £100M wince. Football club ownership is a quick way of becoming much poorer, very quickly. You don't get rich like that to then piss it up the wall on a club like us, if you don't think you'll eventually turn it close to, at the very least, not a loss. I think TS realised this in the summer and had projections for how soon he could be not wealthy if he carried on the course he was.
We are a very expensive gamble that will only pay out if you put a whole heap of money in AND get lucky. Even the most reprehensible gacha-style gambling systems might lead to better returns eventually - it's pretty dumb owning a football club, but I still believe that there are people that could do it for us, and better than TS.
My point is that houses don’t support football clubs; people do. But people come with prior allegiances. Proximity matters but not as much as people think, otherwise Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens would be hotbeds.
You know far more than me but I would have thought the fact we are no competition for the clubs many might support, supporters of big clubs may be attracted to watching us as well as people who want to take their kids to the match. If there is an increase in potential customers, there is a potential increase in fans. It has been reported that there has been and the area seems a lot more attractive than it did a few years ago. I thought this might be due to demographic changes.
Of course this means nothing if you are not an appealing option and pricing and winning football are probably key factors. Again you will know more than me as you have been there and bought the T-shirt. I do remember that when we had our recent play off adventure, quite a lot of fans of other clubs attended. I know of an Arsenal fan who really enjoyed it all and it could have been something to capitalise on.
Yes myself and my daughter went to the playoff final with 4 other Liverpool and West Ham fans. They all were very interested in going to the Valley when we back in the championship but that momentum for them waned once it was clear around Nov/Dec 2019 we were struggling.
Forest Green revealed the energy bill for their stadium last season was around £90,000 and they expect that figure to triple
I think we will see some teams kick off early on Saturdays in the winter for this reason. I think in the covid year a few teams did (Gillingham I think?) it to save a few pennies but with the increasing costs I think we will see more of it
Seems quite likely, especially the lower down the leagues and into non-league you go.
@Tom_Night on twitter has said Saandgard is trying to remove the 3pm block so he can stream the games, has put his wife in as CEO, and that Gallen and Garner both want out
Unfortunately I really fear for our future. Sandgaard owns nothing at the club apart from the name. Hopefully someone like @Airman Brown can dissuade me of this view, but unless there is a rich person like Barclay around, the only way Sandgaard gets rid is to sell it on to chancers like Bassini and Southall.
That's my nightmare scenario. It could get a lot, lot worse.
No, someone with serious money works out it’s the cheapest way to acquire a Premier League club in London and blows RD and TS away. Such people are out there, but no promises.
I wonder if this is what TS means by "Premier League ready"...
My point is that houses don’t support football clubs; people do. But people come with prior allegiances. Proximity matters but not as much as people think, otherwise Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens would be hotbeds.
You know far more than me but I would have thought the fact we are no competition for the clubs many might support, supporters of big clubs may be attracted to watching us as well as people who want to take their kids to the match. If there is an increase in potential customers, there is a potential increase in fans. It has been reported that there has been and the area seems a lot more attractive than it did a few years ago. I thought this might be due to demographic changes.
Of course this means nothing if you are not an appealing option and pricing and winning football are probably key factors. Again you will know more than me as you have been there and bought the T-shirt. I do remember that when we had our recent play off adventure, quite a lot of fans of other clubs attended. I know of an Arsenal fan who really enjoyed it all and it could have been something to capitalise on.
I know people who have other football allegiances but were reeled in by ticket deals - particularly v cheap kids' tickets - and live within walking distance/ within earshot of The Valley.
Those people do exist, but I'm not sure there are that many and many will have been converted already.
If they wanted to move to the area now then they may be priced out by high house prices, and the majority of new housing that's been built close by isn't family housing - so there won't be reams of people coming in thinking "what shall we do with the kids this Saturday? Let's give the football a go", even if they can afford the £15 we're now charging 11/12-year-olds.
Just about believable until the CAFCTV and marketing bit. That’ll be easy to test this coming weekend. Who wants to try to buy (and watch) the stream on Saturday?
My point is that houses don’t support football clubs; people do. But people come with prior allegiances. Proximity matters but not as much as people think, otherwise Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens would be hotbeds.
You know far more than me but I would have thought the fact we are no competition for the clubs many might support, supporters of big clubs may be attracted to watching us as well as people who want to take their kids to the match. If there is an increase in potential customers, there is a potential increase in fans. It has been reported that there has been and the area seems a lot more attractive than it did a few years ago. I thought this might be due to demographic changes.
Of course this means nothing if you are not an appealing option and pricing and winning football are probably key factors. Again you will know more than me as you have been there and bought the T-shirt. I do remember that when we had our recent play off adventure, quite a lot of fans of other clubs attended. I know of an Arsenal fan who really enjoyed it all and it could have been something to capitalise on.
I know people who have other football allegiances but were reeled in by ticket deals - particularly v cheap kids' tickets - and live within walking distance/ within earshot of The Valley so travelling isn't a bother.
Those people do exist, but I'm not sure there are that many and many will have been converted already. If they wanted to move to the area now may be priced out, and the majority of new housing that's been built close by isn't family housing - so there won't be reams of people coming in thinking "what shall we do with the kids this Saturday? Let's give the football a go", even if they can afford the £15 we're now charging 11/12-year-olds.
I'm not so sure. We took more fans to Wembley than Sunderland. The problem is, you have to keep improving the product which was beyond us then and has been so since the days of Curbs.
My point is that houses don’t support football clubs; people do. But people come with prior allegiances. Proximity matters but not as much as people think, otherwise Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens would be hotbeds.
You know far more than me but I would have thought the fact we are no competition for the clubs many might support, supporters of big clubs may be attracted to watching us as well as people who want to take their kids to the match. If there is an increase in potential customers, there is a potential increase in fans. It has been reported that there has been and the area seems a lot more attractive than it did a few years ago. I thought this might be due to demographic changes.
Of course this means nothing if you are not an appealing option and pricing and winning football are probably key factors. Again you will know more than me as you have been there and bought the T-shirt. I do remember that when we had our recent play off adventure, quite a lot of fans of other clubs attended. I know of an Arsenal fan who really enjoyed it all and it could have been something to capitalise on.
I know people who have other football allegiances but were reeled in by ticket deals - particularly v cheap kids' tickets - and live within walking distance/ within earshot of The Valley so travelling isn't a bother.
Those people do exist, but I'm not sure there are that many and many will have been converted already. If they wanted to move to the area now may be priced out, and the majority of new housing that's been built close by isn't family housing - so there won't be reams of people coming in thinking "what shall we do with the kids this Saturday? Let's give the football a go", even if they can afford the £15 we're now charging 11/12-year-olds.
I'm not so sure. We took more fans to Wembley than Sunderland. The problem is, you have to keep improving the product which was beyond us then and has been so since the days of Curbs.
Oh, sure, build it and they will come, and they will come from a distance - the people I have in mind largely came in during the Powell years. But heaps of new 1/2-bed flats within a 30-minute walk of The Valley isn't going to provide a steady stream of new support in League One.
There may be truth in this, I’ve been watching the last few games without a VPN.
We can test that Charlton TV bit on Saturday and of course see if Gallen walks. Mind you if Scoham has watched games without a VPN that might alreadly confirm it.
My point is that houses don’t support football clubs; people do. But people come with prior allegiances. Proximity matters but not as much as people think, otherwise Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens would be hotbeds.
You know far more than me but I would have thought the fact we are no competition for the clubs many might support, supporters of big clubs may be attracted to watching us as well as people who want to take their kids to the match. If there is an increase in potential customers, there is a potential increase in fans. It has been reported that there has been and the area seems a lot more attractive than it did a few years ago. I thought this might be due to demographic changes.
Of course this means nothing if you are not an appealing option and pricing and winning football are probably key factors. Again you will know more than me as you have been there and bought the T-shirt. I do remember that when we had our recent play off adventure, quite a lot of fans of other clubs attended. I know of an Arsenal fan who really enjoyed it all and it could have been something to capitalise on.
I know people who have other football allegiances but were reeled in by ticket deals - particularly v cheap kids' tickets - and live within walking distance/ within earshot of The Valley so travelling isn't a bother.
Those people do exist, but I'm not sure there are that many and many will have been converted already. If they wanted to move to the area now may be priced out, and the majority of new housing that's been built close by isn't family housing - so there won't be reams of people coming in thinking "what shall we do with the kids this Saturday? Let's give the football a go", even if they can afford the £15 we're now charging 11/12-year-olds.
I'm not so sure. We took more fans to Wembley than Sunderland. The problem is, you have to keep improving the product which was beyond us then and has been so since the days of Curbs.
We took more fans to Wembley in 2019, didn't in 1998 (due to ticket allocations), Sunderland had taken 50k a month earlier to Wembley in 2019 and did so again in May this year
My point is that houses don’t support football clubs; people do. But people come with prior allegiances. Proximity matters but not as much as people think, otherwise Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens would be hotbeds.
You know far more than me but I would have thought the fact we are no competition for the clubs many might support, supporters of big clubs may be attracted to watching us as well as people who want to take their kids to the match. If there is an increase in potential customers, there is a potential increase in fans. It has been reported that there has been and the area seems a lot more attractive than it did a few years ago. I thought this might be due to demographic changes.
Of course this means nothing if you are not an appealing option and pricing and winning football are probably key factors. Again you will know more than me as you have been there and bought the T-shirt. I do remember that when we had our recent play off adventure, quite a lot of fans of other clubs attended. I know of an Arsenal fan who really enjoyed it all and it could have been something to capitalise on.
I know people who have other football allegiances but were reeled in by ticket deals - particularly v cheap kids' tickets - and live within walking distance/ within earshot of The Valley so travelling isn't a bother.
Those people do exist, but I'm not sure there are that many and many will have been converted already. If they wanted to move to the area now may be priced out, and the majority of new housing that's been built close by isn't family housing - so there won't be reams of people coming in thinking "what shall we do with the kids this Saturday? Let's give the football a go", even if they can afford the £15 we're now charging 11/12-year-olds.
I'm not so sure. We took more fans to Wembley than Sunderland. The problem is, you have to keep improving the product which was beyond us then and has been so since the days of Curbs.
We took more fans to Wembley in 2019, didn't in 1998 (due to ticket allocations), Sunderland had taken 50k a month earlier to Wembley in 2019 and did so again in May this year
And why would Gallen walk when he’s getting a good wage? That doesn’t make much sense to me 🤔🤷♀️
Think it's insinuating that he'd be pushed. Can't say I'm overly bothered but that is assuming he is replaced by someone that knows what they're doing so maybe I should be bothered.
The more worrying one is Garner being fed up. I'm sure he's frustrated with the recruitment but I'd like to think he has more about him than to throw his toys out the pram and walk.
Comments
So if tou add together the playing staff (generously a positive value but short term asset) plus the ongoing deficit of income vs outgoings (inc player wages) you would end up with a perpetual ongoing loss (occasionally offset by academy sales which are inherently uncertain).
Football club ownership, on the whole, has become the playground of the ultra rich, where a promoted club from the Championship can spend over £100 million on trying to stay in the Premier League. Even in the relative modesty of L1, everything remains on the up. You do need to significantly speculate to accumulate to play this particular financial game, and there's a lot more losers than winners when total investment is considered. Only a relatively small amount of clubs would be profitable, and even then, those clubs may not be successful in traditional progress up the leagues. Even clubs like Peterborough who have had a decent record of transfer sale profit need to keep reinvesting to try and return to the Championship.
I don't think anyone should come into ownership at English football at a L1/L2 level and expect anything less than massive, sustained investment over multiple years with very little return, if success on the pitch is the target. I think TS thought it would be easier here and we were going to go straight up with NA in charge. The lack of backing for Garner for players that demand a fee just highlights his hesitance and likely eventual route away from the club in the not too distant future, imho.
Continued investment with no guaranteed (or a highly volatile) return is what makes even people worth £100M wince. Football club ownership is a quick way of becoming much poorer, very quickly. You don't get rich like that to then piss it up the wall on a club like us, if you don't think you'll eventually turn it close to, at the very least, not a loss. I think TS realised this in the summer and had projections for how soon he could be not wealthy if he carried on the course he was.
We are a very expensive gamble that will only pay out if you put a whole heap of money in AND get lucky. Even the most reprehensible gacha-style gambling systems might lead to better returns eventually - it's pretty dumb owning a football club, but I still believe that there are people that could do it for us, and better than TS.
Of course this means nothing if you are not an appealing option and pricing and winning football are probably key factors. Again you will know more than me as you have been there and bought the T-shirt. I do remember that when we had our recent play off adventure, quite a lot of fans of other clubs attended. I know of an Arsenal fan who really enjoyed it all and it could have been something to capitalise on.
First part doesn't seem likely
No one likes us (not even Charlton fans).
Those people do exist, but I'm not sure there are that many and many will have been converted already.
If they wanted to move to the area now then they may be priced out by high house prices, and the majority of new housing that's been built close by isn't family housing - so there won't be reams of people coming in thinking "what shall we do with the kids this Saturday? Let's give the football a go", even if they can afford the £15 we're now charging 11/12-year-olds.
Where have you got that from?!
Doubt it.
That doesn’t make much sense to me 🤔🤷♀️
Think it's insinuating that he'd be pushed. Can't say I'm overly bothered but that is assuming he is replaced by someone that knows what they're doing so maybe I should be bothered.
The more worrying one is Garner being fed up. I'm sure he's frustrated with the recruitment but I'd like to think he has more about him than to throw his toys out the pram and walk.