Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlton back up for sale - Guardian article comment from Gavin Carter p18
Comments
-
I did think that it is a quick and cheap way to spread the news but I doubt many clients would be impressed by an agency that did that.TellyTubby said:
Perhaps the new agency gave this to the Guardian, to save them time in working behind the scenes and a wider reach?Henry Irving said:Reading Cawley's piece I suspect the club's stance would be that this is the same as before ie they are still looking for additional investment, as they said months ago (remember the "we've got £20m to spend" myth that came from the Athletic story), but the last agency didn't find anyone so they've gone with a new one.
Now, we can choose to believe that or not. We all have varying degrees of PTSD as a result of previous ownerships so I'm not surprised by the reaction to the Guardian story.
Whatever the real story is, the club "declining to comment" has only fuelled the flames and again highlights the need, IMHO, for an on the ground CEO and for the club to get ahead of the narrative.
Not having permanant staff at the top could be read as leaving the decks clear for new owners to appoint their own staff. It may be nothing of the sort and much more mundane recruitment issues but the delay/vacuum invites speculation.
There is also a question as to why the original agency failed and if the new one can do any better? Are we an unattractive deal, is the price too high or does the lack of physical assets put investors off?
Someone pointed out the Bolton owners sold a minority stake in their club this summer but why were they able to make a deal but not, so far at least, us?
Over to you GFP4 -
Owning a football ground is a waste of capital, especially in an era of higher interest rates. Not owning our ground does have an impact of prestige I guess, but I’m not sure any owner would rather tie up capital in a stadium. Interested to hear others views but I imagine Charlton’s lease agreement, an operation expense, is probably preferable.
5 -
Yea doesn't suggest they can do business quietly does it!Henry Irving said:
I did think that it is a quick and cheap way to spread the news but I doubt many clients would be impressed by an agency that did that.TellyTubby said:
Perhaps the new agency gave this to the Guardian, to save them time in working behind the scenes and a wider reach?Henry Irving said:Reading Cawley's piece I suspect the club's stance would be that this is the same as before ie they are still looking for additional investment, as they said months ago (remember the "we've got £20m to spend" myth that came from the Athletic story), but the last agency didn't find anyone so they've gone with a new one.
Now, we can choose to believe that or not. We all have varying degrees of PTSD as a result of previous ownerships so I'm not surprised by the reaction to the Guardian story.
Whatever the real story is, the club "declining to comment" has only fuelled the flames and again highlights the need, IMHO, for an on the ground CEO and for the club to get ahead of the narrative.
Not having permanant staff at the top could be read as leaving the decks clear for new owners to appoint their own staff. It may be nothing of the sort and much more mundane recruitment issues but the delay/vacuum invites speculation.
There is also a question as to why the original agency failed and if the new one can do any better? Are we an unattractive deal, is the price too high or does the lack of physical assets put investors off?
Someone pointed out the Bolton owners sold a minority stake in their club this summer but why were they able to make a deal but not, so far at least, us?
Over to you GFP1 -
No, if they wanted to impress their clients, they'd leak it to The Mail, The Express and The SunHenry Irving said:
I did think that it is a quick and cheap way to spread the news but I doubt many clients would be impressed by an agency that did that.TellyTubby said:
Perhaps the new agency gave this to the Guardian, to save them time in working behind the scenes and a wider reach?Henry Irving said:Reading Cawley's piece I suspect the club's stance would be that this is the same as before ie they are still looking for additional investment, as they said months ago (remember the "we've got £20m to spend" myth that came from the Athletic story), but the last agency didn't find anyone so they've gone with a new one.
Now, we can choose to believe that or not. We all have varying degrees of PTSD as a result of previous ownerships so I'm not surprised by the reaction to the Guardian story.
Whatever the real story is, the club "declining to comment" has only fuelled the flames and again highlights the need, IMHO, for an on the ground CEO and for the club to get ahead of the narrative.
Not having permanant staff at the top could be read as leaving the decks clear for new owners to appoint their own staff. It may be nothing of the sort and much more mundane recruitment issues but the delay/vacuum invites speculation.
There is also a question as to why the original agency failed and if the new one can do any better? Are we an unattractive deal, is the price too high or does the lack of physical assets put investors off?
Someone pointed out the Bolton owners sold a minority stake in their club this summer but why were they able to make a deal but not, so far at least, us?
Over to you GFP0 -
Attracting additional investment would hopefully be a positive for the club. However, if Oakwell work with the likes of the 777 group that they've openly stated as a success story then that could end up with extremely negative consequences.0
-
Charlton Fan Advocates·2hNo direct quotes but Rich was briefed by the club for this story
______
Confirms that Cawley was briefed by the club as suspected which is fine but the club does also have its own press team and media outlets it could, and IMHO still should, use.17 -
How are you finding CoPilot?RonnieMoore said:Calm down guysLooks like the paper headline of a sale was incorrect and misleadingSouth London Sport: Charlton Athletic Edition has reached out to the club this evening to ask for comment on The Guardian’s article.Early indications from the club have been that nothing has changed since Slater’s story about them seeking investment, except that it is now a different company doing it.Charlton have since managed to consolidate their place in the Championship, avoiding an instant return to League One, with their women’s side promoted to the WSL, returning to the top flight for the first time since 2007, although staying there is likely to be costly.There is also an insistence that it would be counter-intuitive for GFP not to progress the club when looking for investment, that the focus remains on driving it forward, that their spend this summer is in line with long-term planning and will see an increase in wages spent on players.18 -
Talksport are gonna cover it on the show with Alex crook0
-
As I was driving home just now I heard them mention it with the comment for discussion that sounded like ‘why has the club become so unstable at the top’ .roseandcrown said:Talksport are gonna cover it on the show with Alex crookSomeone might want to give them a call and calm this down before Nathan finds it almost impossible to sign anyone2 -
Sponsored links:
-
I suppose it does exclude the chancers who are looking for a club that can be bought for a £1 and then its assets stripped. It's a way to ensure your buyer has serious financial backing and intent.TeeC said:Owning a football ground is a waste of capital, especially in an era of higher interest rates. Not owning our ground does have an impact of prestige I guess, but I’m not sure any owner would rather tie up capital in a stadium. Interested to hear others views but I imagine Charlton’s lease agreement, an operation expense, is probably preferable.0 -
Crook is mates with Dean Holden, and no doubt still has an axe to grind with the current leadership ownersletthegoodtimesroll said:
As I was driving home just now I heard them mention it with the comment for discussion that sounded like ‘why has the club become so unstable at the top’ .roseandcrown said:Talksport are gonna cover it on the show with Alex crookSomeone might want to give them a call and calm this down before Nathan finds it almost impossible to sign anyone2 -
Why would any one put capital into a club if they do not have the say in how it is run, just look at the Staveley issues with Westham at the moment.0
-
TeeC said:
James,
Hope you're well.
All good here thanks, and I hope you are too.
Yes, no problem at all. Is it okay if I get everything over to you over the weekend? I'm away at the moment, but I'll make sure it's all sent across then.
Thanks again, and speak soon.
Agree. My concern has shifted quite dramatically from worrying that the club and the ground aren't as one, to only worrying about who actually owns it.
If we were ever put up for sale, I think any prospective owner would simply see it as buying the football club. They'd obviously want to know the rent, the lease terms and any other commitments, but they wouldn't necessarily see the current ownership structure as unusual because it's all they'd have known.
As I've said before, I would personally love to see the club own both The Valley and Sparrows Lane. At this stage though, it feels more like a romantic ideal than a realistic expectation. Maybe in years to come if we had a decent run in the Prem, the personal circumstances at Chateau Duchatelet changed and the club owners thought they could maybe increase the value of the club itself by bringing it all back together, there might eventually be enough turnover to make something like that possible.
0 -
Peterborough owner saying we are a good prospect for an owner with massive potential.He also said he thinks if true it’s a positive for Charlton fans7
-
Given that you’ve highlighted that the clubs key asset is not actually owned by the club, what assets could be stripped? How would this even offset the cost required to purchase the club, let alone run a profit for the envisaged asset stripper?SouthLincsAddick said:
Great point! Not owning any property assets means we’re open to crooks buying us on the cheap and asset stripping. We’ve already been there before. We’ve been relatively lucky to have these owners. I also think the pink trousered one sold them a pup by claiming we were badly run (true) and could be run for £1-2m losses a year (fantasy). I see Charlie is on a podcast now, claiming to be an expert about the business of football.charente addick said:I wonder if the new efl spending rules have contributed to our owners ‘going cold’. We were low down on the list of Championship spenders anyway and the new rules have just exacerbated that position further. Our owners could have looked at this and thought ‘even if we spend to the max we cannot hope to compete for promotion so what’s the point. Let’s cut our losses.’
I’m not sure I’ve ever bought that they were in it for the long term. For a medium size club we were relatively cheap to buy as there are no property assets (ground/training ground) which makes us very attractive to even shorter term investors than football normally attracts. Jones and the players have done a great job in getting us up to the Championship and keeping us there but the lack of ownership of the property is always going to be a significant weakness which comes home to roost every 3 years or so when owners realise there is no fast buck.
The article may be exaggerated somewhat and hopefully Jones has a bit more money to spend to at least give us a chance of being competitive in holding our place in the division. But, no smoke without fire, the warning signs are there - we’ve seen them several times. I’m bracing myself for a very tough ride.0 -
Why ? . What would be the point in that . We are hardly likely to be very newsworthy unless someone has asked for the story to be leaked/Repeated . The timing is what worries meRothko said:To be fair to the Guardian, they couldn’t just use the same headline the Athletic used in January. Got to make the story seem different.0 -
From The Football Economy
Reports about Charlton sale exaggerated
3 -
Everyone outside the club says this whenever we come up for sale and yet we never seem to get that type of owner.roseandcrown said:Peterborough owner saying we are a good prospect for an owner with massive potential.He also said he thinks if true it’s a positive for Charlton fans1 -
Sponsored links:
-
The club briefed the press just after 10,000 people bought season tickets. Are they really that malicious ?Henry Irving said:Charlton Fan Advocates·2hNo direct quotes but Rich was briefed by the club for this story
______
Confirms that Cawley was briefed by the club as suspected which is fine but the club does also have its own press team and media outlets it could, and IMHO still should, use.0 -
I’m not sure there’s an awful lot of difference between looking for additional investment/investors and a full sale. It’s quite conceivable that achieving the first is a step on the road to the second, which is what it seems Kretinsky intended at WHam until he let his options lapse on both Gold and Sullivan’s stakes and now finds himself having to pay millions more to stave off a new investor.
I am surprised at the choice of advisor though. If your only previous experience in football is with 777 Partners as a client, then you probably should be given a wide berth.3 -
Masterful collaboration by AFKA and the club - just as the rumours thread could regurgitate the holsgrove/ 532/4231/TC good bad no further, the ‘investment deck’ bomb is launched - 👏👏5
-
Worrying. Without investment in GOOD players we could well be relegated. In L1 given our bloated squad, expensive academy, overlarge 'backroom' staff, and having to lease our premises, our value would be well below £15 Million, let alone the £40-45 Million being touted as a selling price.
I doubt that owners keen to sell will invest what's needed to mantain our Championship status.
Nathan Jones, his players and coaching staff will have a big job in trying to ignore any negative chit chat and to concentrate on playing football
3 -
They must have been aware of a potential leak by keeping the media away vs Reading. Could this be they already have a buyer and they were there? The buyers wanted this article leaked to push things along?
Finally the owners could have leaked this after having a few potential buyers there against Reading?
1 -
I'm tired boss ...5
-
Well that's convinced me it's time to meltdown, he's incredibly unpopular here for how he runs Poshroseandcrown said:Peterborough owner saying we are a good prospect for an owner with massive potential.He also said he thinks if true it’s a positive for Charlton fans0 -
well that went well, they probably thought lets buy Reading, a better team with a ground, and save ourselves a few dollars.robroy said:They must have been aware of a potential leak by keeping the media away vs Reading. Could this be they already have a buyer and they were there? The buyers wanted this article leaked to push things along?
Finally the owners could have leaked this after having a few potential buyers there against Reading?2 -
It’s really not. We still have a short lease in commercial terms. It means you can’t make any major long-term investment in facilities and you run the risk, if you establish the club in the Premier League, of being held to ransom. It’s fine if you’d be happy sharing Selhurst Park.TeeC said:Owning a football ground is a waste of capital, especially in an era of higher interest rates. Not owning our ground does have an impact of prestige I guess, but I’m not sure any owner would rather tie up capital in a stadium. Interested to hear others views but I imagine Charlton’s lease agreement, an operation expense, is probably preferable.8 -
How many times has he claimed on socials that he's selling Posh and it never actually happens. Guys just very good at talking to the media.fenaddick said:
Well that's convinced me it's time to meltdown, he's incredibly unpopular here for how he runs Poshroseandcrown said:Peterborough owner saying we are a good prospect for an owner with massive potential.He also said he thinks if true it’s a positive for Charlton fans3
