Charlie Methven Podcast

[canterburyaddick]

There is a Fans Forum tonight, which unfortunately I am unable to attend as double-booked. There should be some feedback from that and I hope Methven is there as, like Storrie, he appears to be very open about things. This includes stuff that may be less palatable to some fans.

It appears that the club is finally being run by grown ups.

[seriouslyred]

Sept 14, 2023 13:42:49 GMT somerton said:

Sept 14, 2023 13:26:44 GMT aaronaldo said:

I don't think anyone is saying that

Except that is a consequence of the Metheven business plan if they are to stick to their budgets.

I think there's always a risk of conflating different events:
- if Leaburn plays as well as earlier this year then big bids are bound to come in from the Championship in 2024
- he's unlikely to sign an extension with us so Scott and the SMT need to maximise the sale price AND optimise the timing of staged payments
- those payments go towards operating losses and/or enhancing the wage budget
- separate negotiations with CBT and Dobson will take a few months, and if one or both refuse to sign then they too might be sold as opposed to going on a free next summer

As with the Murray, Varney, Curbs era and under Duchatelet, players will always be sold if the right bid comes in. The trick is to have replacements lined up AND improve the whole squad AND have right head coach.

[Mundell]

Sept 14, 2023 11:48:36 GMT kings hill addick said:

I've listened to the first two, and half of the third podcast. I agree that Methven comes across well - he would do he was educated at Eaton and they all learn to speak well as a matter of course.

I agree with most of the comments above, especially Mundell's about how Methven and his cohorts are 'gambling' on new rules controlling spending in the Championship to 70% of turnover on player wages, opposed to making an average loss of c. £13m a season.

I have some reservations as to if the Premier League will, realistically, give up much more of the money they generate. I'm also not sure that it is fair to expect them do so. The huge worldwide audiences tune in to watch the football because it is the best (arguably) in the world, but that is only because they can afford the best players. If the Premier League gives half of it's money away it's only a matter of time before the product on offer will be inferior. I also have an issue with the marketability of, say Man Utd, funding journeymen players in League One earning c. £10k a week.

I, like others, have some concerns about the parachute payments but all clubs are going to do their best to be promoted in their first season down - that's usually the best chance they have. The stats that clubs with parachute payments getting way more points that those without seems to forget that the clubs that come down already have better players. The bookies always fancy the relegated clubs to be top of the division each season - even in leagues where there is little or no money. I'm not sure that the benefit of stopping the parachute payments outweighs the risk of administration to clubs that come down and can't offload enough players.

We don't want to make relegation, from the Premier League, spell instant doom for any club, but I don't, personally, see an acceptable solution to it.

I do have an issue with the fact that as the clubs get more and more money they just give more and more to players and agents. For that reason, there will never be a point at which the EFL clubs don't keep demanding more money. The solution has to come from them spending less.

One think that they didn't talk about which I, immediately, thought of is that if the SCMP does come into effect throughout the whole EFL, players salaries, outside of the Premier League, are going to fall drastically. If the wages being paid to McGrandles (who was signed on a free transfer) and Kirk (who was a 'marquee' signing) have played a large part in us hitting the 60% of turnover - based in London with way above average gates (for the division) - the days of those kind of wages are soon to be long gone. Ignoring the fact that those two players have contributed little, with us having so many young players (who are not included in the calculation), it is clear that their wages are not sustainable in our division. I have seen nothing to make me believe that either of them are good enough to play for a club in a higher division, with a much higher turnover.

I guess this means that both of them, and Aneke, will be on our payroll for another two years - even if we loan them out we will be paying a significant proportion of their wages.

I don't want to cut anyone's income but it is clear that all the while clubs are loosing millions each season the players are, just, being paid too much. Limiting it to turnover is a, virtually, guaranteed way to being those numbers down.

If Methven is right and the spending is going to be, properly, limited then they are, clearly, going to have a head start on the competition. If, however, nothing much is going to change then we are going to be in this division for a very long time.

I agree with this kings hill addick While I’ve been impressed by Methven’s strategic grasp of the issues facing the game, I was a little surprised by his confidence that the EPL has (all but) decided to gift another circa £200m to the EFL.

It may well be that while EPL clubs believe such transfer payments are unjustified and inappropriate they have decided to propose a tolerable giveaway simply to remove the risk of a draconian outcome, but the White Paper on Football Governance goes no further than saying “The regulator would have fall-back powers over financial redistribution”. It’s important to note here that these fall-back powers rest not with DCMS, but with the Chairperson of a Quango. He or she would need some balls to take on the EPL’s club’s lawyers, especially given that forcing one private sector enterprise to directly transfer money to another has no legal justification, economic logic or precedent.

Let’s suppose Methven is right though, the key to his vision is that as a quid pro quo for bigger giveaways the EPL would force clubs in the EFL, and especially those in the Championship, to exercise much more financial discipline. He may be right, but it’s interesting to note that in 2014, when clubs in the Championship were on the way to implementing rules which would have significantly reduced losses, it was the EPL that applied pressure to reverse this trend and this led directly to the absurdly named Profitability and Sustainability rules which allow losses of £13m p.a., before add backs or carve outs.

At the time the EPL was interested in the EPL not the Championship and, presumably, wanted clubs promoted to it to be competitive. Strict financial controls on clubs in the Championship would increase the gap between them and those in the EPL, potentially making it much more difficult for them to adjust if promoted. Such controls would also increase the gap between most Championship clubs and those with parachute payments, harming the League’s competitive balance. In short, not only would some of the clubs in the Championship resist strict financial controls they may not be in the interests of the EPL either. The EPL is the most attractive League in world football and is now dominant in terms of media revenues. The intense competitiveness of the league and the annual ding dong battle to avoid relegation are important parts of the attraction that the EPL will be desperate to preserve. Once in place, the hapless chair of the new regulator will quickly realise that the problem at hand is a lot more complex and nuanced than was set out in Tracey Crouch’s superficial and populist fan led review.

There is another part of the picture here that might also have an important impact on SE7’s plans. Under the SCMP, as Methven explained, equity injections can be used to fund wage bill directly, but he implied this was something clubs would avoid doing. However, that doesn’t necessarily follow. Beyond a certain level of debt funding it’s not obvious there’s any practical difference between financing via loans or equity. In turn, this probably means that direct controls on spending will be needed. The closer the link between those controls and player wages, the more likely it is that the PFA will get involved, as they did when wage controls were briefly introduced during the pandemic, and yet we know that the problem is that wages are too high. If football is to become more sustainable, players will need to be paid less, at least outside the EPL. There is no simple solution here.

I really hope Methven is right, but it now seems clear that SE7 is making a bet on developments that may not come to pass.

Fingers crossed.

[kings hill addick]

Sept 14, 2023 21:52:36 GMT Mundell said:

Sept 14, 2023 11:48:36 GMT kings hill addick said:

I've listened to the first two, and half of the third podcast. I agree that Methven comes across well - he would do he was educated at Eaton and they all learn to speak well as a matter of course.

I agree with most of the comments above, especially Mundell's about how Methven and his cohorts are 'gambling' on new rules controlling spending in the Championship to 70% of turnover on player wages, opposed to making an average loss of c. £13m a season.

I have some reservations as to if the Premier League will, realistically, give up much more of the money they generate. I'm also not sure that it is fair to expect them do so. The huge worldwide audiences tune in to watch the football because it is the best (arguably) in the world, but that is only because they can afford the best players. If the Premier League gives half of its money away it's only a matter of time before the product on offer will be inferior. I also have an issue with the marketability of, say Man Utd, funding journeymen players in League One earning c. £10k a week.

I, like others, have some concerns about the parachute payments but all clubs are going to do their best to be promoted in their first season down - that's usually the best chance they have. The stats that clubs with parachute payments getting way more points that those without seems to forget that the clubs that come down already have better players. The bookies always fancy the relegated clubs to be top of the division each season - even in leagues where there is little or no money. I'm not sure that the benefit of stopping the parachute payments outweighs the risk of administration to clubs that come down and can't offload enough players.

We don't want to make relegation, from the Premier League, spell instant doom for any club, but I don't, personally, see an acceptable solution to it.

I do have an issue with the fact that as the clubs get more and more money they just give more and more to players and agents. For that reason, there will never be a point at which the EFL clubs don't keep demanding more money. The solution has to come from them spending less.

One think that they didn't talk about which I, immediately, thought of is that if the SCMP does come into effect throughout the whole EFL, players salaries, outside of the Premier League, are going to fall drastically. If the wages being paid to McGrandles (who was signed on a free transfer) and Kirk (who was a 'marquee' signing) have played a large part in us hitting the 60% of turnover - based in London with way above average gates (for the division) - the days of those kind of wages are soon to be long gone. Ignoring the fact that those two players have contributed little, with us having so many young players (who are not included in the calculation), it is clear that their wages are not sustainable in our division. I have seen nothing to make me believe that either of them are good enough to play for a club in a higher division, with a much higher turnover.

I guess this means that both of them, and Aneke, will be on our payroll for another two years - even if we loan them out we will be paying a significant proportion of their wages.

I don't want to cut anyone's income but it is clear that all the while clubs are loosing millions each season the players are, just, being paid too much. Limiting it to turnover is a, virtually, guaranteed way to being those numbers down.

If Methven is right and the spending is going to be, properly, limited then they are, clearly, going to have a head start on the competition. If, however, nothing much is going to change then we are going to be in this division for a very long time.

I agree with this kings hill addick While I’ve been impressed by Methven’s strategic grasp of the issues facing the game, I was a little surprised by his confidence that the EPL has (all but) decided to gift another circa £200m to the EFL.

It may well be that while EPL clubs believe such transfer payments are unjustified and inappropriate they have decided to propose a tolerable giveaway simply to remove the risk of a draconian outcome, but the White Paper on Football Governance goes no further than saying “The regulator would have fall-back powers over financial redistribution”. It’s important to note here that these fall-back powers rest not with DCMS, but with the Chairperson of a Quango. He or she would need some balls to take on the EPL’s club’s lawyers, especially given that forcing one private sector enterprise to directly transfer money to another has no legal justification, economic logic or precedent.

Let’s suppose Methven is right though, the key to his vision is that as a quid pro quo for bigger giveaways the EPL would force clubs in the EFL, and especially those in the Championship, to exercise much more financial discipline. He may be right, but it’s interesting to note that in 2014, when clubs in the Championship were on the way to implementing rules which would have significantly reduced losses, it was the EPL that applied pressure to reverse this trend and this led directly to the absurdly named Profitability and Sustainability rules which allow losses of £13m p.a., before add backs or carve outs.

At the time the EPL was interested in the EPL not the Championship and, presumably, wanted clubs promoted to it to be competitive. Strict financial controls on clubs in the Championship would increase the gap between them and those in the EPL, potentially making it much more difficult for them to adjust if promoted. Such controls would also increase the gap between most Championship clubs and those with parachute payments, harming the League’s competitive balance. In short, not only would some of the clubs in the Championship resist strict financial controls they may not be in the interests of the EPL either. The EPL is the most attractive League in world football and is now dominant in terms of media revenues. The intense competitiveness of the league and the annual ding dong battle to avoid relegation are important parts of the attraction that the EPL will be desperate to preserve. Once in place, the hapless chair of the new regulator will quickly realise that the problem at hand is a lot more complex and nuanced than was set out in Tracey Crouch’s superficial and populist fan led review.

There is another part of the picture here that might also have an important impact on SE7’s plans. Under the SCMP, as Methven explained, equity injections can be used to fund wage bill directly, but he implied this was something clubs would avoid doing. However, that doesn’t necessarily follow. Beyond a certain level of debt funding it’s not obvious there’s any practical difference between financing via loans or equity. In turn, this probably means that direct controls on spending will be needed. The closer the link between those controls and player wages, the more likely it is that the PFA will get involved, as they did when wage controls were briefly introduced during the pandemic, and yet we know that the problem is that wages are too high. If football is to become more sustainable, players will need to be paid less, at least outside the EPL. There is no simple solution here.

I really hope Methven is right, but it now seems clear that SE7 is making a bet on developments that may not come to pass.

Fingers crossed.

Indeed, Methven talked about allowing cash injections was a problem as the player contracts are longer than one season so they shouldn’t be allowed either. He kept saying that the owner might not be able to put the money in again or might, just, not want to.

It does seem like a massive gamble to assume that all the clubs will go from spending like mad to win games and promotion to agreeing to cut costs ‘waiting their turn for promotion’.

[seriouslyred]

Sept 14, 2023 22:03:26 GMT kings hill addick said:

Sept 14, 2023 21:52:36 GMT Mundell said:

I agree with this kings hill addick While I’ve been impressed by Methven’s strategic grasp of the issues facing the game, I was a little surprised by his confidence that the EPL has (all but) decided to gift another circa £200m to the EFL.

It may well be that while EPL clubs believe such transfer payments are unjustified and inappropriate they have decided to propose a tolerable giveaway simply to remove the risk of a draconian outcome, but the White Paper on Football Governance goes no further than saying “The regulator would have fall-back powers over financial redistribution”. It’s important to note here that these fall-back powers rest not with DCMS, but with the Chairperson of a Quango. He or she would need some balls to take on the EPL’s club’s lawyers, especially given that forcing one private sector enterprise to directly transfer money to another has no legal justification, economic logic or precedent.

Let’s suppose Methven is right though, the key to his vision is that as a quid pro quo for bigger giveaways the EPL would force clubs in the EFL, and especially those in the Championship, to exercise much more financial discipline. He may be right, but it’s interesting to note that in 2014, when clubs in the Championship were on the way to implementing rules which would have significantly reduced losses, it was the EPL that applied pressure to reverse this trend and this led directly to the absurdly named Profitability and Sustainability rules which allow losses of £13m p.a., before add backs or carve outs.

At the time the EPL was interested in the EPL not the Championship and, presumably, wanted clubs promoted to it to be competitive. Strict financial controls on clubs in the Championship would increase the gap between them and those in the EPL, potentially making it much more difficult for them to adjust if promoted. Such controls would also increase the gap between most Championship clubs and those with parachute payments, harming the League’s competitive balance. In short, not only would some of the clubs in the Championship resist strict financial controls they may not be in the interests of the EPL either. The EPL is the most attractive League in world football and is now dominant in terms of media revenues. The intense competitiveness of the league and the annual ding dong battle to avoid relegation are important parts of the attraction that the EPL will be desperate to preserve. Once in place, the hapless chair of the new regulator will quickly realise that the problem at hand is a lot more complex and nuanced than was set out in Tracey Crouch’s superficial and populist fan led review.

There is another part of the picture here that might also have an important impact on SE7’s plans. Under the SCMP, as Methven explained, equity injections can be used to fund wage bill directly, but he implied this was something clubs would avoid doing. However, that doesn’t necessarily follow. Beyond a certain level of debt funding it’s not obvious there’s any practical difference between financing via loans or equity. In turn, this probably means that direct controls on spending will be needed. The closer the link between those controls and player wages, the more likely it is that the PFA will get involved, as they did when wage controls were briefly introduced during the pandemic, and yet we know that the problem is that wages are too high. If football is to become more sustainable, players will need to be paid less, at least outside the EPL. There is no simple solution here.

I really hope Methven is right, but it now seems clear that SE7 is making a bet on developments that may not come to pass.

Fingers crossed.

Indeed, Methven talked about allowing cash injections was a problem as the player contracts are longer than one season so they shouldn’t be allowed either. He kept saying that the owner might not be able to put the money in again or might, just, not want to.

It does seem like a massive gamble to assume that all the clubs will go from spending like mad to win games and promotion to agreeing to cut costs ‘waiting their turn for promotion’.

Methven certainly speaks with conviction but we should note that there are two hypothetical scenarios here: imminent creation of an independent regulator as opposed to in a few years time, and an additional £7M per Championship club coupled with a switch from P&S to SCMP.

Let's say both have a 75% probability of occurring by 2025 AND that CAFC secure promotion in May 2025. That's a 50% chance of a favourable environment multiplied by our odds of promotion next August!

What's of interest is what steps the SMT, head coach and investors might take to advance our cause via the two 2024 windows AND the Sparrows Lane coaching / sports science.

Many different outcomes - perhaps we secure more clarity over the next ten games on the grass. At the same time let's see which way the political winds blow.

[zenga]

Sept 14, 2023 23:52:42 GMT seriouslyred said:

[...]we should note that there are two hypothetical scenarios here [...]

Let's say both have a 75% probability of occurring by 2025 AND that CAFC secure promotion in May 2025. That's a 50% chance of a favourable environment multiplied by our odds of promotion next August!

I believe your math might be slightly off here if I understand your phrasing correctly: if both scenarios (= each a favourable environment) have a 75% probability to occur then the chance of a favourable environment is 94% and not 50% (1-(0.25*0.25)). I have no idea how accurate your 75% probability estimation is, but from an investment POV a 94% chance is quite different than a 50% chance.

[seriouslyred]

Sept 15, 2023 7:08:27 GMT zenga said:

Sept 14, 2023 23:52:42 GMT seriouslyred said:

[...]we should note that there are two hypothetical scenarios here [...]

Let's say both have a 75% probability of occurring by 2025 AND that CAFC secure promotion in May 2025. That's a 50% chance of a favourable environment multiplied by our odds of promotion next August!

I believe your math might be slightly off here if I understand your phrasing correctly: if both scenarios (= each a favourable environment) have a 75% probability to occur then the chance of a favourable environment is 94% and not 50% (1-(0.25*0.25)). I have no idea how accurate your 75% probability estimation is, but from an investment POV a 94% chance is quite different than a 50% chance.

Nigh on four decades since I did the course but was running with:
75% chance of external regulator within a year or two x 75% chance of desired regulation = 56.25%

Whereas 25% chance of no external regulator

And 75% chance of regulator x 25% chance of not securing SCMP & improved EPL solidarity payments => 18.75%

Whatever the actual odds, it's important not to dismiss Methven nor apply blind faith in his forecast outcome.

[zenga]

Sept 15, 2023 11:24:06 GMT seriouslyred said:

Sept 15, 2023 7:08:27 GMT zenga said:

I believe your math might be slightly off here if I understand your phrasing correctly: if both scenarios (= each a favourable environment) have a 75% probability to occur then the chance of a favourable environment is 94% and not 50% (1-(0.25*0.25)). I have no idea how accurate your 75% probability estimation is, but from an investment POV a 94% chance is quite different than a 50% chance.

Nigh on four decades since I did the course but was running with:
75% chance of external regulator within a year or two x 75% chance of desired regulation = 56.25%

Whereas 25% chance of no external regulator

And 75% chance of regulator x 25% chance of not securing SCMP & improved EPL solidarity payments => 18.75%

Whatever the actual odds, it's important not to dismiss Methven nor apply blind faith in his forecast outcome.

They way I read/understand your post is: there is a 75% chance that it's going to snow tomorrow and there is also a 75% chance that it's going to rain tomorrow (outcomes are it can rain, it can snow, it can rain and snow or it can do neither). To calculate the odds of at least one event happening you have to multiply the inverse. So 1-(.25*.25) = there is a 93.75% chance that it is going to be wet tomorrow, can be snow, can be rain. Also a 6.25% chance that it's going to stay dry. Snow being the independent regulator (hypothetical scenario 1), rain being switch from P&S to SCMP (hypothetical scenario 2).

The chance for it both raining and snowing tomorrow is .75*.75 so 56.25%. 

Or the chance that one of your hypothetical scenarios becomes reality is 93.75%
The chance that both of your hypothetical scenarios become reality is 56.75%

[aaronaldo]

I think SR was looking for the % for both events happening. Each at 75% chance. So the 56.75%

[Mundell]

Another episode of ‘Where’s The Money Gone?” has been released today. This one is called “The Sack Race”. 

While I listen to them very selectively, I’m subscribed to a fair few podcasts about Football, covering tactics, finances, analysis and general chit chat, so I’m aware of at least some of the content that’s available. Much of it really isn’t very good. Very often, even if potentially interesting, they ultimately fail to deliver. Given this very mixed competition, I’d say that Goldberg and Methven compare very favourably indeed. I’ve no idea how much content they’ve got (so how many episodes they’re capable of producing), but so far I’d say it’s one of the best Football podcasts around. The opinions are clearly articulated, always make sense (even if you don’t agree) and, typically, pull no punches. It’s good stuff. 

This episode touches on Dean Holden’s departure, but respectfully doesn’t get into any specifics. Methven’s more general comments about how Managers/Head Coaches are judged (and what their KPIs might be) are interesting and, more importantly, once again tell us a great deal about the business model the new owners have in mind. 

In my view (and no boosterism here) Methven is communicating the clearest grasp of the challenges facing Charlton Athletic and the most coherent strategic response of any previous owner, Director or member of senior management. And by some margin. The Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust and other luminaries within the fan base would do well to listen to what he has to say. 

There are never any guarantees of success, but I’m confident we’re in good hands. I don’t know what more we might reasonably expect. 

[reamsofverse]

Well said Chris.

[webbo]

I am confused whether Methven is a sleeping partner or decision maker at Charlton.

[Mundell]

Sept 27, 2023 9:49:50 GMT webbo said:

I am confused whether Methven is a sleeping partner or decision maker at Charlton.

The answer is almost certainly neither. While Methven is neither a Director nor an employee of CAFC Ltd, he is one of two Directors (and probably Chairman) of SE7 Partners, the company that owns CAFC Ltd.

It follows that the Board of CAFC Ltd is accountable to Methven. In turn, Methven is accountable to Global Football Partners and its investors. As far as I’m aware, we don’t know whether Methven is on the board of GFP, but whether he is or not I think we can assume he’s the main interlocutor with the investors.

Methven has made it very clear that day to day management of the club is delegated to the Senior Management Team and the CAFC Board. He is not the decision maker and he made that very clear in the case of Dean Holden’s removal, for example. That was not his decision he has said.

However. I think we can also be fairly confident that Methven has set out the strategy for the club and for its management and governance. My guess is that the decision to appoint a Technical Director and a Director of Performance were both his, for example. No doubt he will also be instrumental in agreeing annual budgets etc and appraising performance through his role as a Director of SE7.

It’s possible that Methven will be more hands on when it comes to the club’s commercial development, but even here he won’t be the formal decision maker or the signatory on any documents. That will be down to the Officers and Directors of CAFC.

[leedsaddick]

I can only reiterate again that this podcast, is a must, if you want to understand Football Club Management. The big call out for me has been the application of standard business tools and techniques to a sporting context, such as KPI's, Strategic Workforce Planning, reward, talent acquistion. I was initially very sceptical of Charlie Methven's involvement, but having listned to the latest episode, he's clearly very switched on and has " consulted" with top Clubs, and there is a clear distinction between the value, insights and network contacts that he has incomparison to other owners, and I'm thinking specifically ESI. Perhaps, TS's greatest parting gift was to engage with CM to start the change of ownership. What is also very clear is that a lot of the fan base, are unaware of the changing Football Club organisational models and want to hark back to the 90's... like it or not, those days have gone, and I'm happy if this year we have a top 10 finish and then have a serious go next season

[kings hill addick]

Sept 27, 2023 12:54:16 GMT leedsaddick said:

I can only reiterate again that this podcast, is a must, if you want to understand Football Club Management. The big call out for me has been the application of standard business tools and techniques to a sporting context, such as KPI's, Strategic Workforce Planning, reward, talent acquistion. I was initially very sceptical of Charlie Methven's involvement, but having listned to the latest episode, he's clearly very switched on and has " consulted" with top Clubs, and there is a clear distinction between the value, insights and network contacts that he has incomparison to other owners, and I'm thinking specifically ESI. Perhaps, TS's greatest parting gift was to engage with CM to start the change of ownership. What is also very clear is that a lot of the fan base, are unaware of the changing Football Club organisational models and want to hark back to the 90's... like it or not, those days have gone, and I'm happy if this year we have a top 10 finish and then have a serious go next season

The impression that many have of Methven will have come from the Netflix show about Sunderland. The clue is in the title - it's a show. The media (including broadcasters and Netflix) love to vilify those with post accents, especially those that went to the kind of schools that most of us can only dream of being able to afford for our children.

The truth is that Methven (like most with an outstanding education) is very capable. A lot of what he tried to do at Sunderland came off, he was just portrayed as a bit of a dick doing it.

Incidentally Netflix also made Martin Bain, the CEO in season one look like an incompetent idiot. Stewart Donald, the owner that worked with Methven, didn't come away looking very clever either. I guess that's show business.

The more of the podcast that I listen to the more I tend to find myself agreeing with Charlie Methven. Obviously time will tell but, assuming that we are patient, I think that Methven will leave the club in a better state than he found it - like, it appears, he did at Sunderland.

[sevenoaks]

Although people don't like to admit it.
Thats been my gripe, with people, who formed a dislike due to sounding posh and wearing Salmon trousers.🙄🙄.
Look where Sunderland are!..

[leedsaddick]

@ Kings Hill Addick.... just building on your last post. Have you seen the Sky Documentary on Burnley's promotion year? There's a lot of focus on performance metrics ( I dont mean Finance) and Kompany comes accross really well at understanding these and talks really well at them and how this links to the Team's performance. CM, talks about this on the podcast, but the documentary shows this in action... I found this fascinating and it's stuff that we as supporters dont see... I really like the rigour behind this

[seriouslyred]

Sept 27, 2023 14:17:48 GMT leedsaddick said:

@ Kings Hill Addick.... just building on your last post. Have you seen the Sky Documentary on Burnley's promotion year? There's a lot of focus on performance metrics ( I dont mean Finance) and Kompany comes accross really well at understanding these and talks really well at them and how this links to the Team's performance. CM, talks about this on the podcast, but the documentary shows this in action... I found this fascinating and it's stuff that we as supporters dont see... I really like the rigour behind this

Not seen Burnley but have been watching Welcome to Wrexham. What's very clear is that it's one thing to be ambitious and budget for success. But that becomes ruinously expensive when top six budgets fail to deliver top six performance and results. Accompanied by toxic atmosphere and groups protesting.

We are starting to see the fruits of a 75% change in the matchday 18 plus two management changes in the 12 months since September 2022. But it's way too soon to judge how far we are in the journey between mid-table and top six.

This commentary from CM can only help inform. Plus interviews with Appleton and Scott.

Another few games and will all have more insight into where this squad really lies.

[Mundell]

Sept 27, 2023 10:58:10 GMT Mundell said:

Sept 27, 2023 9:49:50 GMT webbo said:

I am confused whether Methven is a sleeping partner or decision maker at Charlton.

The answer is almost certainly neither. While Methven is neither a Director nor an employee of CAFC Ltd, he is one of two Directors (and probably Chairman) of SE7 Partners, the company that owns CAFC Ltd.

It follows that the Board of CAFC Ltd is accountable to Methven. In turn, Methven is accountable to Global Football Partners and its investors. As far as I’m aware, we don’t know whether Methven is on the board of GFP, but whether he is or not I think we can assume he’s the main interlocutor with the investors.

Methven has made it very clear that day to day management of the club is delegated to the Senior Management Team and the CAFC Board. He is not the decision maker and he made that very clear in the case of Dean Holden’s removal, for example. That was not his decision he has said.

However. I think we can also be fairly confident that Methven has set out the strategy for the club and for its management and governance. My guess is that the decision to appoint a Technical Director and a Director of Performance were both his, for example. No doubt he will also be instrumental in agreeing annual budgets etc and appraising performance through his role as a Director of SE7.

It’s possible that Methven will be more hands on when it comes to the club’s commercial development, but even here he won’t be the formal decision maker or the signatory on any documents. That will be down to the Officers and Directors of CAFC.

PS I now see that the minutes of the recent Fans Forum have confirmed most of this. We also now know that Charlie Methven is a Director of Global Football Partners. 

[aaronaldo]

Another great episode to listen to. Even without Charlie being involved with CAFC I would find the podcast very informative.

I thought it was interesting how the KPI's for managers (you would assume this is the case for us considering the source) include xG. It's a stat that a few of us one here follow closely, but I didn't even consider this could be a KPI for a manager/head coach. I'll definitely be keeping a close eye on our performances in this regard going forwards. You'd have to assume expected goals against (xGA) would be in there as well then.

[seriouslyred]

Sept 28, 2023 16:13:20 GMT aaronaldo said:

Another great episode to listen to. Even without Charlie being involved with CAFC I would find the podcast very informative.

I thought it was interesting how the KPI's for managers (you would assume this is the case for us considering the source) include xG. It's a stat that a few of us one here follow closely, but I didn't even consider this could be a KPI for a manager/head coach. I'll definitely be keeping a close eye on our performances in this regard going forwards. You'd have to assume expected goals against (xGA) would be in there as well then.

We have a top six wage budget. Aside from Kirk and McGrandles all the squad are making a contribution. Therefore it's up to the manager / head coach to deliver top six XG for and against.

We have top six XG for AND the players to convert chances AND options on the bench.

Back five is a different story and we've been bottom six this season. As posted before, we need XG against to reduce to 1.1 so as to win games and climb the table.

[Mundell]

Sept 28, 2023 16:13:20 GMT aaronaldo said:

Another great episode to listen to. Even without Charlie being involved with CAFC I would find the podcast very infortmative.

I thought it was interesting how the KPI's for managers (you would assume this is the case for us considering the source) include xG. It's a stat that a few of us one here follow closely, but I didn't even consider this could be a KPI for a manager/head coach. I'll definitely be keeping a close eye on our performances in this regard going forwards. You'd have to assume expected goals against (xGA) would be in there as well then.

I may have the detail wrong here, but I recall several years ago Rasmus Ankersen, ex co-Director of Football at Brentford, ex Chairman of Midtjylland and now of Sport Republic (Southampton), being asked about a run of poor results at Midtjylland. He replied saying he was relaxed because the Xg was good and results were very likely to improve. In this context, Xg is both for and against. 

It’s easy to say that football is a results business, but an enlightened owner will know it’s not quite that simple. Results don’t always reflect underlying performances (the League table can lie) and it’s obviously important to take into account relative wage budget, injuries and other factors. Methven obviously gets all of this. 

Better results might have kept Holden in his job for longer, but it’s a fair bet that poor results alone don’t explain why he lost it. 

[aaronaldo]

Sept 28, 2023 19:23:46 GMT Mundell said:

Sept 28, 2023 16:13:20 GMT aaronaldo said:

Another great episode to listen to. Even without Charlie being involved with CAFC I would find the podcast very infortmative.

I thought it was interesting how the KPI's for managers (you would assume this is the case for us considering the source) include xG. It's a stat that a few of us one here follow closely, but I didn't even consider this could be a KPI for a manager/head coach. I'll definitely be keeping a close eye on our performances in this regard going forwards. You'd have to assume expected goals against (xGA) would be in there as well then.

I may have the detail wrong here, but I recall several years ago Rasmus Ankersen, ex co-Director of Football at Brentford, ex Chairman of Midtjylland and now of Sport Republic (Southampton), being asked about a run of poor results at Midtjylland. He replied saying he was relaxed because the Xg was good and results were very likely to improve. In this context, Xg is both for and against. 

It’s easy to say that football is a results business, but an enlightened owner will know it’s not quite that simple. Results don’t always reflect underlying performances (the League table can lie) and it’s obviously important to take into account relative wage budget, injuries and other factors. Methven obviously gets all of this. 

Better results might have kept Holden in his job for longer, but it’s a fair bet that poor results alone don’t explain why he lost it. 

When you say xG is both for and against. I assume you mean that the xG of our opponent would be our xGa (against) as such? If so, then yeah. Opta split it out as it’s own stat as well though to show the overall picture.

Or did you mean something else?

[Mundell]

Sept 28, 2023 21:38:27 GMT aaronaldo said:

Sept 28, 2023 19:23:46 GMT Mundell said:

I may have the detail wrong here, but I recall several years ago Rasmus Ankersen, ex co-Director of Football at Brentford, ex Chairman of Midtjylland and now of Sport Republic (Southampton), being asked about a run of poor results at Midtjylland. He replied saying he was relaxed because the Xg was good and results were very likely to improve. In this context, Xg is both for and against. 

It’s easy to say that football is a results business, but an enlightened owner will know it’s not quite that simple. Results don’t always reflect underlying performances (the League table can lie) and it’s obviously important to take into account relative wage budget, injuries and other factors. Methven obviously gets all of this. 

Better results might have kept Holden in his job for longer, but it’s a fair bet that poor results alone don’t explain why he lost it. 

When you say xG is both for and against. I assume you mean that the xG of our opponent would be our xGa (against) as such? If so, then yeah. Opta split it out as it’s own stat as well though to show the overall picture.

Or did you mean something else?

You’re right, that’s what I meant. It’s also possible to estimate expected points. If team A has an Xg of 1.5, say, and it’s opponent 1.0, for sake of argument, then there are a number of ways in which we might estimate how often team A would win, lose or draw and, hence, what the “expected” points are. It’s then possible to go a stage further and put together an “expected” League table. For the most part, the expected and actual League tables will be quite close, but there will be outliers, teams that are doing significantly better or significantly worse than they should be. A smart owner will want to know the “expected” outcome as well as the actual outcome before making important decisions around the Head Cosch and the playing staff, for example. 

If you have a few moments listen to this Ted Talk by Rasmus Ankersen. It’s interesting, insightful and entertaining. He starts by talking about the Nokia 3310, the demise of Nokia and then uses data on Newcastle United to explain what went wrong. He doesn’t use expected goals per se, but he explains why it’s important to understand underlying performances, especially when things are going well, to avoid being fooled by randomness and hence failing to adapt. 

Hers’s the link.

[webbo]

I have no idea why Methven wants to be involved with Charlton as opposed to any other distressed club.
I certainly don’t think it’s because he is even a bit of a fan, but probably everybody posting here is a full on fan.

[Mundell]

Sept 29, 2023 8:39:00 GMT webbo said:

I have no idea why Methven wants to be involved with Charlton as opposed to any other distressed club.
I certainly don’t think it’s because he is even a bit of a fan, but probably everybody posting here is a full on fan.

I’ve always seen you as an honest and straightforward poster webbo but with respect I sometimes feel you’re deliberately obtuse. 

Let’s say you fancy buying a football club (ideally using somebody else’s money) because you believe it would be fun, think you can make some money and believe you have a viable plan to succeed. You look for something “distressed” because it’s likely to be cheap and, hence, would offer more potential. Clubs in the Championship are out because they’d cost £50m so you focus on League One, League Two or even the National League. 

What do you look for? A good location - close to Central London is good if you’re looking for overseas investors. A good catchment area and a ready fan base. A Premier League ready Stadium (or contractual use of one). A good training ground. A very productive academy. Hence lots of potential. What else might be on your list? 

Now scan the League One, League Two and National League tables and tell me how many “distressed clubs” you’ve found that look a better fit than Charlton? 

[kings hill addick]

Sept 29, 2023 9:13:52 GMT Mundell said:

Sept 29, 2023 8:39:00 GMT webbo said:

I have no idea why Methven wants to be involved with Charlton as opposed to any other distressed club.
I certainly don’t think it’s because he is even a bit of a fan, but probably everybody posting here is a full on fan.

I’ve always seen you as an honest and straightforward poster webbo but with respect I sometimes feel you’re deliberately obtuse. 

Let’s say you fancy buying a football club (ideally using somebody else’s money) because you believe it would be fun, think you can make some money and believe you have a viable plan to succeed. You look for something “distressed” because it’s likely to be cheap and, hence, would offer more potential. Clubs in the Championship are out because they’d cost £50m so you focus on League One, League Two or even the National League. 

What do you look for? A good location - close to Central London is good if you’re looking for overseas investors. A good catchment area and a ready fan base. A Premier League ready Stadium (or contractual use of one). A good training ground. A very productive academy. Hence lots of potential. What else might be on your list? 

Now scan the League One, League Two and National League tables and tell me how many “distressed clubs” you’ve found that look a better fit than Charlton? 

I agree with this. I would suggest that the same logic was applied with the purchase of Ipswich. Funnily enough, had Ipswich not been in League One at the time their, current, owners might have bought us.

[reamsofverse]

Sept 29, 2023 8:39:00 GMT webbo said:

I have no idea why Methven wants to be involved with Charlton as opposed to any other distressed club.
I certainly don’t think it’s because he is even a bit of a fan, but probably everybody posting here is a full on fan.

Why does he have to be a fan? One of our former owners, Michael Slater was a huge City fan. I even remeber him getting clobbered by the Madrid riot Police when Real played City in the Champions League?

[webbo]

Sept 29, 2023 9:13:52 GMT Mundell said:

Sept 29, 2023 8:39:00 GMT webbo said:

I have no idea why Methven wants to be involved with Charlton as opposed to any other distressed club.
I certainly don’t think it’s because he is even a bit of a fan, but probably everybody posting here is a full on fan.

I’ve always seen you as an honest and straightforward poster webbo but with respect I sometimes feel you’re deliberately obtuse. 

Let’s say you fancy buying a football club (ideally using somebody else’s money) because you believe it would be fun, think you can make some money and believe you have a viable plan to succeed. You look for something “distressed” because it’s likely to be cheap and, hence, would offer more potential. Clubs in the Championship are out because they’d cost £50m so you focus on League One, League Two or even the National League. 

What do you look for? A good location - close to Central London is good if you’re looking for overseas investors. A good catchment area and a ready fan base. A Premier League ready Stadium (or contractual use of one). A good training ground. A very productive academy. Hence lots of potential. What else might be on your list? 

Now scan the League One, League Two and National League tables and tell me how many “distressed clubs” you’ve found that look a better fit than Charlton? 

I agree that Charlton are an attractive proposition but wonder if I feel that because I am a fan.
I am influenced by others, especially Southall finding us an attractive proposition and that ended badly.
If it is about having fun for the people in this collective I can only hope they don’t shut things down if it isn’t fun any more.

[995632]

Sept 29, 2023 8:39:00 GMT webbo said:

I have no idea why Methven wants to be involved with Charlton as opposed to any other distressed club.
I certainly don’t think it’s because he is even a bit of a fan, but probably everybody posting here is a full on fan.

Guessing by this you've not actually listened to the podcasts at all? Interesting and insightful.

I guess your issue with Methven is after the editing of the Sunderland documentary, his education and probably his salmon trousers.

So what if he isn't a fan of Charlton? He had access to the people who could afford to buy us, even as a distressed L1 club. We didn't have any fan capable of buying us, and the white knight Varney didn't have the money without his non fan property developing friend (who has had ages to try and buy us but never bothered).

We now have a real management team with professional football people in charge which we've been crying out for for years. We now have an actual chance of a real future that doesn't involve withering on the vine and dying slowly.

Have a listen to the podcast, as numerous people have said it is a very good one.