Looks like there are big problems at Charlton

[ron obvious 1,501]

.... that''s why I have this premonition     that they are doom-ed to perdition ........your go

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]If Charlton do go into administration it will be debt for new stands and land which has done it.[/quote]Yep. Couldn''t be anything else could it?

Preston lost over £9m this year. Have they just bought a new stand too?[/quote]Yes. [/quote]Strange. No mention of it in this years financial statement. Heavy emphasis on staff wages (£11.24m) while ticket sales are down at £3.41m. Their chairman isn''t blaming Stands Mr Carrow but the parachute payments awarded to relegated clubs.

[ROBFLECK 132]

I don''t believe a word of it

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="lappinitup"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]If Charlton do go into administration it will be debt for new stands and land which has done it.[/quote]Yep. Couldn''t be anything else could it?

Preston lost over £9m this year. Have they just bought a new stand too?

[/quote]

Yes. 

[/quote]To be fair to Mr. C, Delloitte found that clubs do spend more on ground improvements than they do on transfer fees as a whole, in their last review.  However, if player wages were at a sustainable level for the income of the clubs, and structured in a tiered fashion, rather than the "cost of a eurofighter" huge money in the Premiership, down to office manager / CEO wages for division 3 players, then Championship clubs would be able to compete rather than being reliant upon sugar daddies to prop them up.  The gaps between levels are too big, which causes clubs to pay aspirational levels of wages to get up a level, and only 3 clubs a season can do this.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

[quote user="I.S."][quote user="First Wizard"]

Unlike little colly fans, I take no comfort from other clubs issues.

[/quote]Thing is as well Wiz, if Charlton ARE close to administration, then how can we possibly not be? Two fairly similar clubs in all reality...[/quote]We didn''t have a Premiership wage bill in the Championship though

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]If Charlton do go into administration it will be debt for new stands and land which has done it.[/quote]Yep. Couldn''t be anything else could it?

Preston lost over £9m this year. Have they just bought a new stand too?[/quote]Yes. [/quote]Strange. No mention of it in this years financial statement. Heavy emphasis on staff wages (£11.24m) while ticket sales are down at £3.41m. Their chairman isn''t blaming Stands Mr Carrow but the parachute payments awarded to relegated clubs.

[/quote]

Why on earth would he blame a stand that he sanctioned?  Get a grip.

Banks do not loan money to pay for players- fact.

Clubs go into administration because they are unable to service their debts.  What are those debts for Lappin?

[T 190]

So football clubs should not have stands according to Mr C. it gets ever more bizarre.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]So football clubs should not have stands according to Mr C. it gets ever more bizarre.[/quote]

Lol, so there were no stands there before clubs built their "new" stands then T?  Bizarre is indeed the correct word.....

How old are you?  Serious question.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="T"]So football clubs should not have stands according to Mr C. it gets ever more bizarre.[/quote]

Lol, so there were no stands there before clubs built their "new" stands then T?[/quote]

2 words - safety certificate.

[T 190]

So your suggestion is we knock down the stands? You are right though that fans don''t pay enough to cover the costs and ger the team they want.

old enough as they say.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

So your suggestion is we knock down the stands? You are right though that fans don''t pay enough to cover the costs and ger the team they want.

old enough as they say.

[/quote]

Lol, you`ve clearly lost the plot T.  Bad day?  Ticket income has been higher than player wages every year since relegation bar the first at NCFC.  Inconvenient for you but true.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Why on earth would he blame a stand that he sanctioned?  Get a grip.

Banks do not loan money to pay for players- fact.

Clubs go into administration because they are unable to service their debts.  What are those debts for Lappin?

[/quote]Banks may not loan money to pay for players, but loaning money for a stand frees up money from other income sources to pay for players.  If player wages were affordable then this money could be used for the stands and the clubs wouldn''t have to have to go into so much debt for stadiums and so would not go bust.Clubs are going into much more debt than they used to.  Stadium costs have risen at about the same rate as income, clubs have always had to have stadia and income and building costs have gone up with inflation.  The only cost which has increased as fast as debt is the player''s wages.

Lets look at an example:1) A man gets a mortgage to buy a house.  2) He then spends all his wages on chunky gold jewellry.  3) He then goes bankrupt and has his home repossed as he can''t pay his mortgage.Under your logic, the man''s desire for a house is the reason he goes bust and the chunky gold jewellry has nothing to do with him going bust! After all he didn''t get the mortgage for the chunky gold jewellry, no bank would make such a loan - fact. He got the mortgage for the house so that is why he has gone bust!

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="T"]So football clubs should not have stands according to Mr C. it gets ever more bizarre.[/quote]

Lol, so there were no stands there before clubs built their "new" stands then T?[/quote]

2 words - safety certificate.

[/quote]

Can you find any examples of other clubs having to replace old stands because they could not get an s.c.?  There could well be one or two but i don`t think it`s commonplace.  Going to away games does make you wonder why there aren`t more sometimes though!

[T 190]

Ahh I understand now - we should have players but no manager, no coaches, no stands, no football pitch, no training facilities, no stewards, no ticket sales, no marketing no floodlights. We could also take up Tangie suggestion and not play away games to save travel costs. brilliant.

[Yellow Rose of Texas 0]

Brilliant analogy. Until the clubs gat grip on wages, there will be many more facing the abyss.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="I.S."][quote user="First Wizard"]

Unlike little colly fans, I take no comfort from other clubs issues.

[/quote]Thing is as well Wiz, if Charlton ARE close to administration, then how can we possibly not be? Two fairly similar clubs in all reality...[/quote]Not really - they suffered relegation and have still forked out money for overpriced players and have dropped two divisions in quite a short space of time. We have done it over a slightly longer period which should mean we had addressed things already for champs level at least. Charlton still kid themselves as being a prem team.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Why on earth would he blame a stand that he sanctioned?  Get a grip.

Banks do not loan money to pay for players- fact.

Clubs go into administration because they are unable to service their debts.  What are those debts for Lappin?

[/quote]

Banks may not loan money to pay for players, but loaning money for a stand frees up money from other income sources to pay for players.  If player wages were affordable then this money could be used for the stands and the clubs wouldn''t have to have to go into so much debt for stadiums and so would not go bust.

Clubs are going into much more debt than they used to.  Stadium costs have risen at about the same rate as income, clubs have always had to have stadia and income and building costs have gone up with inflation.  The only cost which has increased as fast as debt is the player''s wages.


Lets look at an example:
1) A man gets a mortgage to buy a house. 
2) He then spends all his wages on chunky gold jewellry. 
3) He then goes bankrupt and has his home repossed as he can''t pay his mortgage.

Under your logic, the man''s desire for a house is the reason he goes bust and the chunky gold jewellry has nothing to do with him going bust!
After all he didn''t get the mortgage for the chunky gold jewellry, no bank would make such a loan - fact. He got the mortgage for the house so that is why he has gone bust!
[/quote]

That example would only really work if the new stands/land/infrastructure are absolutely necessary and vital- as the house is to Mr bling.  Also, most clubs slash back on player wages and flog off lots of their "gold" to stave off administration which in a sense makes things worse because results and income then tend to drop.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="T"]So football clubs should not have stands according to Mr C. it gets ever more bizarre.[/quote]

Lol, so there were no stands there before clubs built their "new" stands then T?[/quote]

2 words - safety certificate.

[/quote]

Can you find any examples of other clubs having to replace old stands because they could not get an s.c.?  There could well be one or two but i don`t think it`s commonplace.  Going to away games does make you wonder why there aren`t more sometimes though!

[/quote]The major driving force behind stadium improvement was the Taylor Report, or so I thought - it might not apply so much in league 1, but I''m sure there are essential requirements that have to be met in place where a large number of people congregate.  I guess the other driving factor is the fans themselves.  A lot of people wouldn''t have bothered with Carrow Road if it wasn''t a comfortable stadium.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

Ahh I understand now - we should have players but no manager, no coaches, no stands, no football pitch, no training facilities, no stewards, no ticket sales, no marketing no floodlights. We could also take up Tangie suggestion and not play away games to save travel costs. brilliant.

[/quote]

Teams such as Preston seem to manage all the above for way less than we do T as again, has been proved in relation to the `08 accounts and you yourself accepted.  Still, don`t let facts get in the way of your fixed agenda.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="T"]

Ahh I understand now - we should have players but no manager, no coaches, no stands, no football pitch, no training facilities, no stewards, no ticket sales, no marketing no floodlights. We could also take up Tangie suggestion and not play away games to save travel costs. brilliant.

[/quote]

Teams such as Preston seem to manage all the above for way less than we do.

[/quote]Or not. This from late last week. Paragraphs four and six are particularly interesting:

Preston North End saw its losses increase to more than £9m

as player wages soared.

The club reported net pre-tax losses were £9.17m for the

last year with an operating loss of £5.94m, up from £3.38m.

It said on Thursday it had seen a 25% increase in staff costs from £11.24m to

£8.99m which was "almost all attributable to increases in players''

wages".

But, these losses do not include the sales of former captain Paul McKenna to Nottingham Forest

for £750,000 or the impending £4.5m transfer of Sean St Ledger to Middlesbrough - he is currently on at the Teeside club.

Chairman Derek Shaw admitted the club had been kept afloat by loans from major

shareholders, including multi-millionaire Trevor Hemmings, for the last year.

On Wednesday, it announced it had secured a one-year extension to repay more

than £10m of loans to Mr Hemmings'' investment vehicle, Guild Ventures, and the

Friends of PNE consortium.

Chairman Shaw said: "It is becoming increasingly difficult to continue to

meet the expectations of fans who want the club to be competing for promotion

every year.

"Of course, we all want to see this level of success, however, the

competition from the relegated Premier League sides and their financial

resources makes this extremely difficult.

"We have once again been heavily reliant on the assistance of our major

shareholder, Guild Ventures for continuing financial support.

"Without this we certainly could not continue to compete with the cost of

the squad we have maintained which remains well in excess of our total football

income."

In a statement to the stock exchange, the club revealed ticket sales fell from

£3.69m in 2008 to £3.41m this year, but turnover was "broadly in

line" falling just £300,000 to £8.51m.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="T"]Ahh I understand now - we should have players but no manager, no coaches, no stands, no football pitch, no training facilities, no stewards, no ticket sales, no marketing no floodlights. We could also take up Tangie suggestion and not play away games to save travel costs. brilliant.[/quote]Teams such as Preston seem to manage all the above for way less than we do T as again, has been proved in relation to the `08 accounts and you yourself accepted.  Still, don`t let facts get in the way of your fixed agenda.[/quote]Preston have recently announced a loss of £9.17m for the last year. Hardly supports your argument Mr C.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Blah, there are plenty of pretty ropey old stands still in use and i can`t say i`ve heard of any clubs being forced to close stands (then replacing them), although there may well be one or two examples. 

The argument that facilities increase crowds/revenue is certainly fair in relation to us, but it is also fair to point out that had their lovely new stands inspired enough people to regularly fill them ipswich, Leicester, Saints etc may not have ended up in administration.  The subject of this thread are averaging 10k short of capacity at the plush Valley and, as Lappin has helpfully pointed out, Prestons ticket income has dropped despite a lovely new stand.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Preston have recently announced a loss of £9.17m for the last year. Hardly supports your argument Mr C.[/quote]

Get with it Lapp!! Do try and keep up[:O] Preston is sooooooooo last season. They are filed away in the "model clubs such as Hull" folder. Just like scum are now in the "model clubs we used to be jealous of" folder. We now await new examples of clubs we should aspire to from the  CGFPA [;)]

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Purple and Lappin, i am refering to non-player costs which are ridiculously high at NCFC as was proved when comparing our `08 accounts with Prestons.  That has nothing to do with what you have posted so how about a relevant post?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Prestons ticket income has dropped despite a lovely new stand.[/quote]Just proves our board is better than theirs at some things then. [:D]

[7rew 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Preston have recently announced a loss of £9.17m for the last year. Hardly supports your argument Mr C.[/quote]

Get with it Lapp!! Do try and keep up[:O] Preston is sooooooooo last season. They are filed away in the "model clubs such as Hull" folder. Just like scum are now in the "model clubs we used to be jealous of" folder. We now await new examples of clubs we should aspire to from the  CGFPA [;)]

 

[/quote]I''m really looking for the names of these future model clubs - I think I''ve found a bookie who will take "administration in the next 5 years" and am looking for some tips which are at long odds. I.e. those that look superficially sound or ones that look sound on cherry picking only a small number of points about their finances.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Preston have recently announced a loss of £9.17m for the last year. Hardly supports your argument Mr C.[/quote]

Get with it Lapp!! Do try and keep up[:O] Preston is sooooooooo last season. They are filed away in the "model clubs such as Hull" folder. Just like scum are now in the "model clubs we used to be jealous of" folder. We now await new examples of clubs we should aspire to from the  CGFPA [;)]

 

[/quote]

A bit like the numerous "Thank goodness for Delia, at least we`re not like Coventry/Leeds/ipswich/Leicester/Gretna/Southampton who are about to go bust...." threads of recent years.  And we are above how many of those clubs?

And before people sneer about other clubs financial difficulties it may be wise to wait for our own accounts to come out.  The "dire" comment from our CE should give you a clue.....

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Prestons ticket income has dropped despite a lovely new stand.[/quote]Just proves our board is better than theirs at some things then. [:D][/quote]

I agree, have i said otherwise?

[T 190]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Purple and Lappin, i am refering to non-player costs which are ridiculously high at NCFC as was proved when comparing our `08 accounts with Prestons.  That has nothing to do with what you have posted so how about a relevant post?[/quote]

Aready shown though that our higher costs are associated with higher revenue as holds for any business so Mr C''s argument does not hold. You may as well argue that Preston has ridiculouly low revenue compared to NCFC and congratulate the Board for acheiving higher revenues. Of course arguments always get polarised on this message board and I suspect the new mangement team will make redundancies to reduce costs as Mr C wants.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Preston have recently announced a loss of £9.17m for the last year. Hardly supports your argument Mr C.[/quote]

Get with it Lapp!! Do try and keep up[:O] Preston is sooooooooo last season. They are filed away in the "model clubs such as Hull" folder. Just like scum are now in the "model clubs we used to be jealous of" folder. We now await new examples of clubs we should aspire to from the  CGFPA [;)]

 

[/quote]

A bit like the numerous "Thank goodness for Delia, at least we`re not like Coventry/Leeds/ipswich/Leicester/Gretna/Southampton who are about to go bust...." threads of recent years.  And we are above how many of those clubs?

And before people sneer about other clubs financial difficulties it may be wise to wait for our own accounts to come out.  The "dire" comment from our CE should give you a clue.....

[/quote]Only Southampton - Gretna is in Scotland, so it is well above us ! [:)]  Ipswich would be in league 1 this season if they could be, and that has nothing to do with how much money they''ve spent, it''s the same reason that we went down - crap management.  As for Leeds, wait till after Xmas - they always blow it ! [;)]