Charlton down ? | Page 4 | Vital Football

Charlton down ?

Lark

Vital 1st Team Regular
#61
Agreed and I think that was the plan with new stadium. The football club would rent from the development company. Not something I am keen on
I think Scally was one of those who would benefit directly from the club paying rent on the new ground under the proposals for Mill Hill.
 

OneSirKeefy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#62
Could open a book on how many EFL clubs will have gone under, or into admin by this time next year.

I’ll start with 9. What odds?
 

OneSirKeefy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#64
How many clubs have/will disappear down under ?
At the top levels probably (hopefully) none. No doubt a lot of clubs are struggling. But like the EPL, most of the revenue comes from TV not gate/crowd money. Although we are actually allowed crowds back here in Oz (not Victoria though).

There is also not the extravagant player wages over here. Salary caps in all codes are pretty strict and mainly adhered to.

Melbourne Storm (rugby) got done a few years back for abuse of the salary cap system. They got all their premierships over that period expunged from the records, massive fines and forced to move on a lot of their top earners to get under the cap. Some of their administrators, CEO etc got barred. Then played a season basically for no points. They were relegated to last place despite their wins/losses that next season I believe.

The football has recently started again here. Finishing off the last few games, then the play-off finals series. All on TV, minimal (or no) crowds.

AFL season is continuing with all clubs in “hubs” and all paid for by the AFL main body. All the clubs will survive. Well, hopefully.....
 

SteveTreacle

Vital Squad Member
#65
Can't believe any Gills fans have got sympathy with Charlton and their pathetic attempts to worm out of relegation. They were relegated on the pitch fair and square and couldn't even take advantage of Wigan being docked points. Suck it up, Spotters, and focus on next season.
 

Trev_GFC

Vital Squad Member
#66
The "crime" happened in 2018 so has no direct relevance to this past season.

They might have been charged in November but the investigation was concluded in June and it would have been concluded in June regardless of the year. Under normal circumstances, Charlton would have been relegated at the very start of May and would have accepted the relegation. In any other season, the new 2020-21 season would have started this weekend and upon the punishment being announced at the end of July, no one would have argued if the punishment should have been added to the end of the prior season or the season about to start.
Surely if the club overspent in 2018 by inflating their inflation, they wouldn’t have lowered their wage bill accordingly come the next season? Surely this fucks up FFP for the next two years too?
 

markinkent

Vital 1st Team Regular
#67
Could open a book on how many EFL clubs will have gone under, or into admin by this time next year.

I’ll start with 9. What odds?

I think if depends on whether we get fans back and keep them in stadiums if its a stop start process with fans in and then out due to spikes then its hard to plan financially and some will go under.

If we get them in and stay in then hopefully regular cash flow in will help crediors be sympathetic.


My hunch is this will be sporadic if we get back and that will be the final straw for many.
 

chris who

Vital Football Hero
#68
I think if depends on whether we get fans back and keep them in stadiums if its a stop start process with fans in and then out due to spikes then its hard to plan financially and some will go under.

If we get them in and stay in then hopefully regular cash flow in will help crediors be sympathetic.


My hunch is this will be sporadic if we get back and that will be the final straw for many.
The fact is there is the money in the game.The Premier league are still swimming in cash.It is frankly obscene that they will watch hundreds and perhaps thousands of clubs die and still spend 50 million on a player etc.I am done with the Premier league their lack of action in the current circumstances stinks.
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#69
I agree Chris. The moment that the FA gave up control, it was never going to be good for smaller clubs.
The Premier League has only one loyalty and that is to itself.
They pay lip service but really couldn’t give a flying fig about lower league football.
Top earners could sponsor a lower league club for about what they spend on a motor.
I note Harry Kane is sponsoring Orient this coming season.
Good on him.
 

Baghdad_Rob

Vital Squad Member
#70
Surely if the club overspent in 2018 by inflating their inflation, they wouldn’t have lowered their wage bill accordingly come the next season? Surely this fucks up FFP for the next two years too?
They agreed to sell their ground in 2017/18 and put the sale in their 2017/18 financial accounts (from the perspective of FFP), but the actual sale actually went through in the 2018/19 season. Hence, the benefit from the sale should have been in the 18/19 season and not the 17/18 season.

The 2019/20 season would not have been impacted for FFP reasons as the sale of the ground was a one off "bonus" which was spent in a (wrong) prior season.
 

chris who

Vital Football Hero
#71
I agree Chris. The moment that the FA gave up control, it was never going to be good for smaller clubs.
The Premier League has only one loyalty and that is to itself.
They pay lip service but really couldn’t give a flying fig about lower league football.
Top earners could sponsor a lower league club for about what they spend on a motor.
I note Harry Kane is sponsoring Orient this coming season.
Good on him.
Totally agree the example set by Harry Kane has been lost on the rest of Premier league football.The government of any colour can't really help while football remains awash with money.There are far too many other things that they will need to spend out on.So clubs will disappear rapidly in the coming weeks and months.
 

chris who

Vital Football Hero
#72
I have come to the conclusion that in future if I can't get to a Gills and want to see a game. I will definitely look at a local non league Suffolk or Norfolk based club on a spare Saturday afternoon.
 

Trev_GFC

Vital Squad Member
#73
They agreed to sell their ground in 2017/18 and put the sale in their 2017/18 financial accounts (from the perspective of FFP), but the actual sale actually went through in the 2018/19 season. Hence, the benefit from the sale should have been in the 18/19 season and not the 17/18 season.

The 2019/20 season would not have been impacted for FFP reasons as the sale of the ground was a one off "bonus" which was spent in a (wrong) prior season.
Jesus, this is complicated. Can I try working it out? So instead of a playing budget let’s use apples:

16/17: budget of 9 apples over this and previous two seasons, reaches this budget.

17/18: budget increased to 12 apples (stadium sale in accounts), but they only use 9 apples (haven’t physically received the money).

18/19: budget of 12 apples (No increase, last season a one-off), reaches this budget.

19/20: budget of 12 apples allowed, Sheff Weds themselves reduce budget to 10-11 apples

20/21: budget of 9 apples

If the stadium sale was deemed illegal then wouldn’t it mean they should have a budget of 9 apples these last load of years? Therefore they’ve still broken it last season unless they sensible reduced their playing budget to pre-stadium sale?
 

Trev_GFC

Vital Squad Member
#74
I think if depends on whether we get fans back and keep them in stadiums if its a stop start process with fans in and then out due to spikes then its hard to plan financially and some will go under.

If we get them in and stay in then hopefully regular cash flow in will help crediors be sympathetic.


My hunch is this will be sporadic if we get back and that will be the final straw for many.
Scally was hinting at a rescue package due to be offered to clubs in the coming days.
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
#75
I have come to the conclusion that in future if I can't get to a Gills and want to see a game. I will definitely look at a local non league Suffolk or Norfolk based club on a spare Saturday afternoon.
I didn't like it Chris.
I tried both Barnstaple & Bideford and found the standard like park football and not very interesting as a neutral.
Live football with no skin in the game is just not the same.
The only good thing was the pies and having a pint while watching.
Having said that , the Bideford Ultras were interesting.
They are as passionate as any big club fan, probably more so, and the Bideford / Barnstaple derby ... that's off the scale :grinning:
 

Baghdad_Rob

Vital Squad Member
#76
Jesus, this is complicated. Can I try working it out? So instead of a playing budget let’s use apples:

16/17: budget of 9 apples over this and previous two seasons, reaches this budget.

17/18: budget increased to 12 apples (stadium sale in accounts), but they only use 9 apples (haven’t physically received the money).

18/19: budget of 12 apples (No increase, last season a one-off), reaches this budget.

19/20: budget of 12 apples allowed, Sheff Weds themselves reduce budget to 10-11 apples

20/21: budget of 9 apples

If the stadium sale was deemed illegal then wouldn’t it mean they should have a budget of 9 apples these last load of years? Therefore they’ve still broken it last season unless they sensible reduced their playing budget to pre-stadium sale?
They were likely to fall foul of the FFP rules from overspending in the years leading up to 17/18 so they sold the ground in order to make a profit and pass the FFP criteria.

So for the prior few season prior to the sale they overspent by 3 Apples per season. During the 17/18 season they agree to sell the ground for 10 Apples. This means over the prior 3 seasons, they actually made a apple profit instead of a 9 apple loss. Or this is what they claimed at the time.

In reality they had overspent in the 3 seasons up to 17/18.

The sale and profit of the ground would mean they could spend extra in the 19/20 season but this would be true regardless of if the sale happened in 17/18 or 18/19.
 

Trev_GFC

Vital Squad Member
#77
They were likely to fall foul of the FFP rules from overspending in the years leading up to 17/18 so they sold the ground in order to make a profit and pass the FFP criteria.

So for the prior few season prior to the sale they overspent by 3 Apples per season. During the 17/18 season they agree to sell the ground for 10 Apples. This means over the prior 3 seasons, they actually made a apple profit instead of a 9 apple loss. Or this is what they claimed at the time.

In reality they had overspent in the 3 seasons up to 17/18.

The sale and profit of the ground would mean they could spend extra in the 19/20 season but this would be true regardless of if the sale happened in 17/18 or 18/19.
Ah I get you, thanks.