Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Charlton publish 23/24 Accounts

2456

Comments

  • Fumbluff said:
    Wasn’t the plan to reduce the annual losses by about 75%, not to increase them?

    Also the only noticeable investment/growth is in executive salaries, funny that…
    It was yes but no business man in the world can do that in 12-18 months. It’s going to take years. And perversely, more investment in a more solid infrastructure to get to a better operating model.


  • In interested to know what everyone was expecting? This is pretty normal and relies on us going up in the next few years 
    I didnt think our ‘executives’ in the 3rd tier would be trousering £2m a year, and that’s before expenses, consultancies etc 
    CM, £250k, AS £160k
  • Fumbluff said:
    Wasn’t the plan to reduce the annual losses by about 75%, not to increase them?

    Also the only noticeable investment/growth is in executive salaries, funny that…
    It was yes but no business man in the world can do that in 12-18 months. It’s going to take years. And perversely, more investment in a more solid infrastructure to get to a better operating model.


    Okay so the plan might as well have been to put a Charlton player on the moon and when he hadn’t achieved that after 12-18 months we could just shrug and let him have another go (after a moderate wage increase for trying surely)
  • Fumbluff said:
    Fumbluff said:
    Wasn’t the plan to reduce the annual losses by about 75%, not to increase them?

    Also the only noticeable investment/growth is in executive salaries, funny that…
    It was yes but no business man in the world can do that in 12-18 months. It’s going to take years. And perversely, more investment in a more solid infrastructure to get to a better operating model.


    Okay so the plan might as well have been to put a Charlton player on the moon and when he hadn’t achieved that after 12-18 months we could just shrug and let him have another go (after a moderate wage increase for trying surely)
    What?


  • Am I reading this correctly, it’s saying that due to the publicised cyber attack, a load of financial records were completely wiped and couldn’t be retrieved?
    Yes
  • I know it’s not the one that jumps out but I’m trying to work out the figure from selling players. As they’re 23/24 figures I’m assuming May doesn’t count so the only sale is CBT and some loans. Does that figure include wages covered for loans as well as loan fees? It feels quite high 
  • supaclive said:
    I am surprised why anybody is shocked
    There is no way Methven would have been involved without a massive salary attached.

    Lost MORE than previous years.

    I mean those who questioned their financial plans as very difficult to achieve can see in black and white their total mismanagement.   

    Nothing Charlton surprises me.
    Yep. I’m surprised anyone is surprised. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • supaclive said:
    I am surprised why anybody is shocked
    There is no way Methven would have been involved without a massive salary attached.

    Lost MORE than previous years.

    I mean those who questioned their financial plans as very difficult to achieve can see in black and white their total mismanagement.   

    Nothing Charlton surprises me.
    It’s not mismanagement if this was the plan.

    you have to invest to get out of the league which is what they’ve done on  and off the pitch. 

    If they hadn’t we’d all be complaining it was the same old same old.

    now they have done it’s now management?


    I agree I would expect losses to go up in the short term.

    The disappointing thing is that a huge chunk of that 18% increase in wages has been taken up by executive pay rather than the squad.

    If you brought that exec pay down to a still inflated £1m that frees up £900k, which is equivalent to 2 very good league one players on roughly £8.5k a week.

    You have to wonder though, with the cyber attack, has this conveniently hidden higher figures paid out to Execs...

    Hopefully it'll be a figure we simply wont have to worry about next year!!
  • Fumbluff said:
    Wasn’t the plan to reduce the annual losses by about 75%, not to increase them?

    Also the only noticeable investment/growth is in executive salaries, funny that…
    Which was always a pipe dream unless you've got a player you can sell for 6-7m each year.
  • edited April 11

    This was shared at the online directors’ Q&A in January showing the current financial year with a similar outturn to 22/23. The accounts just released are for the year inbetween. 


  • supaclive said:
    I am surprised why anybody is shocked
    There is no way Methven would have been involved without a massive salary attached.

    Lost MORE than previous years.

    I mean those who questioned their financial plans as very difficult to achieve can see in black and white their total mismanagement.   

    Nothing Charlton surprises me.
    It’s not mismanagement if this was the plan.

    you have to invest to get out of the league which is what they’ve done on  and off the pitch. 

    If they hadn’t we’d all be complaining it was the same old same old.

    now they have done it’s now management?


    I agree I would expect losses to go up in the short term.

    The disappointing thing is that a huge chunk of that 18% increase in wages has been taken up by executive pay rather than the squad.

    If you brought that exec pay down to a still inflated £1m that frees up £900k, which is equivalent to 2 very good league one players on roughly £8.5k a week.

    That's a fair point.

    My only thinking is the owners have invested heavily in 'the right people' to get to where they want to be.

    If that works and we go up with a sustainable business model then great.

    If not they have to swallow the cost I'm guessing
  • clive said:
    Anyway, looks like the plan is going well
    As we work toward becoming the UK's most cohesive, sustainable community-driven club competing at elite level.
    To do that was always going to take a few years of continued big losses, and we’ve made a lot of progress on the pitch compared to this time last year.
  • Sponsored links:


  • The 71.5m of losses are over how long a time period?
    Anyone know this?

    I'm assuming it's historical going back to the Roland years?
  • The executive pay is ridiculous and unjustifiable, especially given they've failed to increase revenue to even try to justify their salary. Other than that though there's some positive stuff in there from a football perspective. Wage spend up 18% and player purchases outstripping player spend is at least a positive trend if it continues. You would hope that the current investors would look at our improvement on the pitch this season and tie it to that increased spend so that even if we don't go up this season they will continue to invest in the playing staff. And then think about all the money we could spend if we weren't paying so much to executives. I'll not hold my breath but it's been worse
  • A convenient cyber attack that didn’t take any money, but did take financial data, they’re more sophisticated that Southall’s mob I’ll give them that. Good spot, that. 

    You’d have thought they’d have used the lack of audit trail to not concentrate the losses in exec pay…
    I read the addendum as saying that it did take money but that was covered by insurance? Am I misreading that? 
  • The executive pay is ridiculous and unjustifiable, especially given they've failed to increase revenue to even try to justify their salary. Other than that though there's some positive stuff in there from a football perspective. Wage spend up 18% and player purchases outstripping player spend is at least a positive trend if it continues. You would hope that the current investors would look at our improvement on the pitch this season and tie it to that increased spend so that even if we don't go up this season they will continue to invest in the playing staff. And then think about all the money we could spend if we weren't paying so much to executives. I'll not hold my breath but it's been worse
    They can't do it in a year! It takes time
  • fenaddick said:
    A convenient cyber attack that didn’t take any money, but did take financial data, they’re more sophisticated that Southall’s mob I’ll give them that. Good spot, that. 

    You’d have thought they’d have used the lack of audit trail to not concentrate the losses in exec pay…
    I read the addendum as saying that it did take money but that was covered by insurance? Am I misreading that? 
    You’re right, lazy reading by me
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!