How big are we?

CAFCTrev said:

JustFloydRoad said:

CAFCTrev said:

I always assumed that being a London club with a decent stadium would make us an obvious target in the current era of billionaire and US ownership. It’s still baffling to see clubs like Bournemouth*/Wrexham** et al getting taken over and pumped with money while we’re left waiting.

We are owned by Global Football Partners , which includes several American investors, including Gabriel Brener, Joshua Friedman, and Munir Javeri.

*- the club operates under Foley's multi-club model, with actor Michael B. Jordan holding a minority stake in the ownership group

**- Wrexham's ownership model blends Hollywood personalities with strategic financial partners, leveraging brand and content creation (like the Welcome to Wrexham documentary) to fuel growth, with recent major investments from Apollo and the Allyn family.

The Allyn Family (New York): Known for owning the medical device company Welch Allyn for over 100 years before selling it in 2015. They focus on purpose-driven, community-focused investments.

Apollo Sports Capital (ASC): An investment group focused on global sports, with ties to CEO Al Tylis, who previously invested in Mexican club Necaxa alongside Wrexham owners Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney.

Would you like that for Charlton?

Well, if the question is whether I’d like to be a club in the play-offs like Wrexham, or one comfortably mid-table in the Premier League like Bournemouth, that’s a pretty easy yes.

If the concern is about patchwork investment groups and whether that model works for Charlton, then I think it comes down to long-term security and intent. The two examples mentioned both appear stable and well-backed for the foreseeable future, which is ultimately what most fans want.

We're not a 'big' club and I doubt that we will ever will be, which is fine by me.

The spanner’s over at the toolbox will love this, they orgasm whenever we talk about how big we are. They really see it as a Willy waving contest. Their inferiority complex is enormous, and could be a fascinating thesis for somebody at Uni. 

We’re one of about 30 clubs who are basically all the same size and who see their fortunes wax and wane over time. 

CombeMartin said:

Kap10 said:

Raith_C_Chattonell said:

I recall that someone on here was recently told to ignore it when other clubs say, "We should be beating teams like Charlton'.  

I must admit I feel affronted too. Maybe establishment sides like Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United can get away with it, but not new money teams like Brighton and Bournemouth.

As to whether we can say it about other teams?  Absolutely we can! In fact, I've hardly recovered from Paul Went going to Fulham in 1972.  Why would he leave Charlton for a team like that?

It's not that long ago Spurs and Charlton were on the same level with us consistently taking points off them and finishing above them. Sadly poor decisions and bad ownership took us in different directions.

As far as I recall, it started to go wrong for us when Curbs said he needed a big rest and then Richard Murray ran out of money !

I don't think those were poor decisions, just unfortunate realities.  The bad ownership followed them. 

I'm wondering about when the money run out? After Curbs left, Dowie had a budget of £12 million, so, it doesn't look like it was then. Murray described this as a risk and I remember thinking, 'if only they'd have let AC spend that much'. I suspect I've just answered my own question though.

Stig said:

Braziliance said:

Our potential is absolutely huge, just a shame it's hard to reach it as we won't be succesful enough on the pitch. 

If an ambitious billionaire owned us, there is no reason why we couldn't become one of the top clubs in the country, but that could be said about a few clubs in this league.

I would say we are somewhere between the 30th-40th biggest club in the country, which is pretty decent when you consider the company among us and their global reach.

I'd love to agree with you, but sadly I think that's beyond us. I guess it depends how you define 'top', though. For me, that would mean consistently winning major silverware - we've had none since 1947! The time we'd need to build sufficient support and kudos in the football world would be beyond the patience of any billionaire.

I remember when we were in the Premiership, some of our fans arguing that we were bigger than Spurs on the grounds that we'd beaten them a few times and we're higher in the league. As wonderful as it was going into a Spurs fixture thinking we had every chance of getting three points, the idea that we had somehow overtaken them was absolute nonsense. They had finances, a fan base and an internationally recognised brand (for the want of a better word) that we could only dream of. The respective league positions of the two clubs over the last twenty years has shown how mad that argument was. And that's just Spurs, it's highly questionable whether they could truly call themselves a top side, with the decades of disappointment they've endured.

I think even with a benevolent billionaire, probably the best we could aspire to would be to do a Leicester. A year or two at the top of the tree and then a slow, steady descent back to mid-league obscurity and the never ending bitterness of disappointment at our inability to capitalise on our temporary success.

Like I say, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's been a steady stream of other clubs achieving topness, so I'm not sure why we should.

I don't think Spurs will sell him to us.

CaptainRobbo said:

CombeMartin said:

And on a slightly different tack,  where do we think most of our support now comes from?.   For a  long time I've thought that a huge number come from Kent.  I first came when I lived in Welling about 1954 ?, but started coming regularly in 1963 when we'd moved out to Orpington, then Maidstone and now Ramsgate.  It was my dad that first brought me, so it was the family connection.  (He was an Arsenal supporter as a lad before the war having lived in north London, but moved south after the war).   

I've always suspected that a lot gradually moved out into Kent. 

Nairobi 

You want to hope one of them is a Prince with a very big inheritance and all he needs is your club email address and a few details!...

Raith_C_Chattonell said:

I recall that someone on here was recently told to ignore it when other clubs say, "We should be beating teams like Charlton'.  

I must admit I feel affronted too. Maybe establishment sides like Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United can get away with it, but not new money teams like Brighton and Bournemouth.

As to whether we can say it about other teams?  Absolutely we can! In fact, I've hardly recovered from Paul Went going to Fulham in 1972.  Why would he leave Charlton for a team like that?

Claus Jensen did that when we were in the prem. I'd be happy to be a solid championship club and i think most feel the same. Going to games with 20k in the ground and having the odd pop at promotion and a cup will do me. The only thing i can't accept and will never accept is our piss poor record against **LL**LL. If i were a billionaire i'd make sure that was turned around.   

Stig said:

Braziliance said:

Our potential is absolutely huge, just a shame it's hard to reach it as we won't be succesful enough on the pitch. 

If an ambitious billionaire owned us, there is no reason why we couldn't become one of the top clubs in the country, but that could be said about a few clubs in this league.

I would say we are somewhere between the 30th-40th biggest club in the country, which is pretty decent when you consider the company among us and their global reach.

I'd love to agree with you, but sadly I think that's beyond us. I guess it depends how you define 'top', though. For me, that would mean consistently winning major silverware - we've had none since 1947! The time we'd need to build sufficient support and kudos in the football world would be beyond the patience of any billionaire.

I remember when we were in the Premiership, some of our fans arguing that we were bigger than Spurs on the grounds that we'd beaten them a few times and we're higher in the league. As wonderful as it was going into a Spurs fixture thinking we had every chance of getting three points, the idea that we had somehow overtaken them was absolute nonsense. They had finances, a fan base and an internationally recognised brand (for the want of a better word) that we could only dream of. The respective league positions of the two clubs over the last twenty years has shown how mad that argument was. And that's just Spurs, it's highly questionable whether they could truly call themselves a top side, with the decades of disappointment they've endured.

I think even with a benevolent billionaire, probably the best we could aspire to would be to do a Leicester. A year or two at the top of the tree and then a slow, steady descent back to mid-league obscurity and the never ending bitterness of disappointment at our inability to capitalise on our temporary success.

Like I say, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's been a steady stream of other clubs achieving topness, so I'm not sure why we should.

I think you're right - the era when most club's stature was pretty much set was between 1930 and 1970. If you had real success in that period, you attracted the fans whose support has since been handed down through the generations. Man City couldn't fill their ground for their semi final last night, Man Utd would fill if they were relegated. Chelsea were by far the most successful London club for a decade recently but still play second fiddle to Arsenal in support in London and probably to Spurs still as well. Whilst money can win things now and be one of the barometer's of what makes a big club, to me, the overriding factor is the size of your fanbase in terms of sustaining that success. Once the Arabs get bored at City, they will return to their natural position in the pecking order. As others have said, we are in a bracket along with maybe 30/40 other clubs but i think our location gives us a bigger potential than quite a lot of those because the potential for that support to grow is massive. It will never overtake the big 8 or so that won everything in that 1930-60 period but it can grow significantly from where it is now and there is no reason why we can't be London's 5th biggest club. I can't see us overtaking West Ham. The damage was done in the 60's and 70's when they leaped above us and had some success whilst we never built on our limited success in the 30's and 40's.     

I've always seen us as a classic second tier club, albeit one who has over-performed on occasions to reach the top flight and dipped significantly on others to fall into the third tier. Overall, I've seen 8 promotions and 8 relegations since I started coming in 1968/69.

The game has radically altered, of course, with a huge influx of TV money and wealthy owners, increasing the gap between the have and have-nots into a veritable chasm. As a result, the Championship has become increasingly competitive and a complete money pit for owners. Hopefully we can hang in there this season, build the squad and the supporter base and increase the budget going forward, as the three relegated are more often than not made up predominantly of clubs with the lowest budgets. 

We were unfortunate to come up with Wrexham and Birmingham, both of whom have thrown massive sums at transfer fees and wages, so avoiding the drop will be a fine achievement for us this season, albeit there are only effectively only two slots given the administration of Wednesday. Hopefully we'll be stronger than a couple of the teams coming up from League 1.

If we can establish ourselves at Championship level, there's no reason why we couldn't make it back to the Premier League if all the stars were aligned. Staying there would, however, be a big ask and I do feel there is a natural ceiling on the club's ability to grow. The transport links to South London aren't great and we're in competition with a large number of other London clubs.

Whilst the Football Regulator should be able to make some inroads into the hideous inequalities in the English game in terms of the distribution of TV money, the whole direction of travel at present is to increase the gap between the big clubs and the rest (e.g. the new format of the Champions League and the prize money shelled out at Infantino's recent brainchild, the Club World Cup).

queensland_addick said:

Maybe too much emphasis on the past and not enough on future potential. 
We have in the past been a massive club with 75k crowds.
But for a 4-2 victory v Chelsea, and the subsequent sale of Scott Parker, our recent history may have been extremely different, including European football.
That wasn't so long ago considering we were formed in 1905.
So we have proved our potential, now the goal should be to ensure that in 100 years time, people on this thread will be talking about us as one of the biggest clubs in world football

With a massive following in Nairobi.

Last nights actual attendance proves there's not the appetite for Championship football that some may believe.
A few years treading water here and the norm will become a bigger bore and our brilliant numbers of 20k for weekend matches, that have been happening this season,  will dwindle to the 15k ish level imo and the midweek stuff will be sub 10k 

Stoke was the perfect storm of being re-organised, us getting stuffed by them at theirs, shite weather, traffic and transport, being on TV and being mid-month when people are saving up for Valentine's Day or already spent their wedge for the month

sam3110 said:

Stoke was the perfect storm of being re-organised, us getting stuffed by them at theirs, shite weather, traffic and transport, being on TV and being mid-month when people are saving up for Valentine's Day or already spent their wedge for the month

I suspect that you are right. I'm sure the attendance would have been much bigger without any live TV football although it was a foul night weather wise.