|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Mar 19, 2024 14:43:56 GMT
I don't think the question is about if they have teeth but more if they will use them. We need to remember that there is, in actual fact, no solution that will not piss off come clubs and their fans. I would, even, go as far as to say that there is no solution that doesn't drastically cut the incomes of the players and their agents, and the other high earners in the game - Managers, Chief Executives, Owners etc. The wording of the two articles suggests that the Regulator's main aim will be to control the finances of clubs by dictating to the owners and banning some of them - even after they have bought the club. There is little, in the text, to suggest that they will do much about the distribution of TV revenues. What this is going to mean, in reality, is that all clubs outside of the Premier League will have significant restrictions put on their spending. Based on the fact that most fans, including many Charlton supporters, 'demand' that the owners spend more and more money I suspect that most of them will hate the Regulator and most of what it does. My best guess is that the long term outcome will be to make the gap between the divisions greater than it is now, and ensure that two of the teams relegated from the Premier League will win automatic promotion, each season, and all three promoted clubs will come straight back down. However, as no club will be allowed to spend any, real, money, at all, there will be no risk of clubs going bust - just less excitement as it will be harder for clubs to bridge the gap between them and those above them. The biggest positive for Charlton is that Charlie Methven (who is one of the people pushing this) will be able to sell his shareholding for a significant profit because, as soon as the Regulator stops any clubs spending money, it will remove the need for owners to inject capital, all the while making it possible for success on the pitch. Then potential owners will be able to buy the club and enjoy owning it with no further investments needed. For Charlton, in League One, this would give us a big advantage as our turnover will be one of the largest. Not so much in the Championship, obviously, but we should still, once clubs can only spend a fraction of the revenue they generate, be able to hold our own there. Promotion to the Premier League will be less and less likely, however. The big elephant in the room is how the Regulator will deal with current levels of debt and the way that the clubs finance it. If loan repayments are going to be taken out of the revenue used for calculate players' wages some clubs, with large debts, could in real trouble. It will be interesting to see how the Regulator deals with the £Billions of debt across the two top divisions. If CAFC becomes more attractive and more investable as a result of changes in media monies and cost control then that's surely a good thing. Perhaps Methven will want an exit or perhaps he fancies raising more capital and attempting to push for the Championship play-offs? Either way GFP / SE7 Partners current ownership of CAFC isn't worth much until we return to the Championship. By securing promotion and agreeing a longer lease we might well be worth £30M+ simply because our club will become sustainable AND every season we'll have a ticket to attempt to win promotion to the largest sports media deal on the planet. I've lost count of the number of owners who have racked up £200M of debt over the last decade attempting to reach the EPL once loss limits were raised to £13M per season. In that time CAFC has racked up perhaps £80M of losses but much of that was offset through Duchatelet / Staprix selling the CAFC assets to himself. What happens to clubs with massive debts, and should they be charged market levels of interest to go into the cost management calculations? 🤔 It's difficult to imagine a regulator going full on into dispute with either the EPL or individual clubs just yet. Therfore we might expect six months of positioning and negotiation. Which leads me to repeat my earlier observation that nothing is guaranteed, but CAFC has a free hand to acquire more "elite" players over this next window. When you say 'raising more capital and attempting to push for the Championship play-offs?' if the changes that I predict happen no capital will be allowed to be spent on the football team. It might enable the club to buy The Valley, for say £50m, and reduce the lease/rent payments of c. £500k (?) a year but other than that we won't be able to spend any more. That is, realistically, the only way a Regulator will be able to guarantee that clubs don't get into trouble. You are right about one thing though - many clubs will decide to gamble (shit or bust) by 'spending' a small fortune before the new rules come into effect. They will be the clubs that will look like Reading twelve months after the new regime starts. I would prefer not to be one of those clubs, personally, even thought there are a few on here that would love it, at the start, and then call for everyone's heads when it all goes tits up. |
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Mar 19, 2024 15:01:57 GMT
We better get ahead of the game and do some real business in the summer then!
|
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Mar 19, 2024 15:03:08 GMT
If CAFC becomes more attractive and more investable as a result of changes in media monies and cost control then that's surely a good thing. Perhaps Methven will want an exit or perhaps he fancies raising more capital and attempting to push for the Championship play-offs? Either way GFP / SE7 Partners current ownership of CAFC isn't worth much until we return to the Championship. By securing promotion and agreeing a longer lease we might well be worth £30M+ simply because our club will become sustainable AND every season we'll have a ticket to attempt to win promotion to the largest sports media deal on the planet. I've lost count of the number of owners who have racked up £200M of debt over the last decade attempting to reach the EPL once loss limits were raised to £13M per season. In that time CAFC has racked up perhaps £80M of losses but much of that was offset through Duchatelet / Staprix selling the CAFC assets to himself. What happens to clubs with massive debts, and should they be charged market levels of interest to go into the cost management calculations? 🤔 It's difficult to imagine a regulator going full on into dispute with either the EPL or individual clubs just yet. Therfore we might expect six months of positioning and negotiation. Which leads me to repeat my earlier observation that nothing is guaranteed, but CAFC has a free hand to acquire more "elite" players over this next window. When you say 'raising more capital and attempting to push for the Championship play-offs?' if the changes that I predict happen no capital will be allowed to be spent on the football team. It might enable the club to buy The Valley, for say £50m, and reduce the lease/rent payments of c. £500k (?) a year but other than that we won't be able to spend any more. That is, realistically, the only way a Regulator will be able to guarantee that clubs don't get into trouble. You are right about one thing though - many clubs will decide to gamble (shit or bust) by 'spending' a small fortune before the new rules come into effect. They will be the clubs that will look like Reading twelve months after the new regime starts. I would prefer not to be one of those clubs, personally, even thought there are a few on here that would love it, at the start, and then call for everyone's heads when it all goes tits up. There's no way that happens imo |
|
|
|
Post by Occam’s Razor on Mar 19, 2024 15:31:37 GMT
This thread throws up a revealing insight not just into football finance, but the mindset of certain types of fans.
Roundheads >>> Cavaliers
Romantics >>> Pragmatists
The football >>> the clipboard
Almost all of us would have loved these past 10 years to have had an owner who would have loosened the purse strings, and let rip to a certain extent. Just look at where Ipswich Town are now .
Put simply, would you rather be in Forest’s shoes, with Premier League football & a team of internationals , but with minus 4 points this week, or ours, with a team of journeymen, stuck in mid L1 obscurity, and with Eric Hitchmough & Co speculating about 6 new elite players this Summer 🙄
Personally, I’d take the journey that Forest fans have been on these last 2 seasons anytime .
I’ll never understand the mindset of the ambition minimalists who are more concerned with FFP and xG, than “ALP” (actual league position).
When Patrick Patrick Bauer popped up with his memorable last min winner at Wembley in 2019, you can just imagine a couple of the Eric Hitchmough’s on here turning to the celebrating fans beside them, and saying ..
“Nice goal, but we are now within 42p of breaching FFP”.
|
|
|
|
Post by AndyAddick on Mar 19, 2024 15:39:55 GMT
very interesting times ahead, Chelsea and Man City have been bantered around as having massively overspent. The legalities were discussed on TalkSport today, these cases could last years and years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Mar 19, 2024 15:54:28 GMT
I share your cynicism about the regulator kings hill addick My perspective is that it is simply another populist initiative, albeit a cross party one so it won’t actually win any votes, promising to address multiple grievances, but without either a clear articulation of the problem it is trying to solve or a clear set of policies capable of doing so. My guess is that for all of the noise about the long awaited saviour of English football the regulator will actually change very little. The licensing regime is likely to be little more than a rebranding of what happens already while I suspect that financial controls etc will be left to the football authorities. It has already been announced that the regulator will not issue sporting sanctions (leaving that to the football authorities) and this is a clear sign that DCMS won’t want to do anything that might upset fans. I don’t see how the arrival of the regulator will prevent clubs getting into trouble or falling down the pyramid, like Torquay United, for example. In football’s game of snakes and ladders, which is what I think we all love, for every club that goes up a ladder another falls down a snake. Mind you we are going to see more robust controls on spending, and this will help sustainability, but these are coming from Europe, not our sovereign Parliament. It is of course UEFA, based in Nyon in Switzerland, not the EU, based in Brussels, which is responsible for the Squad Cost Control Ratio which, when introduced, will transform finances in the Championship, but it is hard nevertheless not to smile at the irony. It is the introduction of the SCCR ratio which will be key to Charlton on promotion to the Championship, rather than any increase in Premier League handouts, because it will mean that spending on wages for each club will be based on their revenues, not on the willingness of their owners to throw money down a black hole. This will make Charlton a much more attractive investment than it was previously and I think it helps to explain why GFP bought the club. It makes eventual promotion to the Premier League a possibility without the need for an owner willing and able to spend unlimited amounts of money. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Mar 19, 2024 16:05:54 GMT
This thread throws up a revealing insight not just into football finance, but the mindset of certain types of fans. Roundheads >>> Cavaliers Romantics >>> Pragmatists The football >>> the clipboard Almost all of us would have loved these past 10 years to have had an owner who would have loosened the purse strings, and let rip to a certain extent. Just look at where Ipswich Town are now . Put simply, would you rather be in Forest’s shoes, with Premier League football & a team of internationals , but with minus 4 points this week, or ours, with a team of journeymen, stuck in mid L1 obscurity, and with Eric Hitchmough & Co speculating about 6 new elite players this Summer 🙄 Personally, I’d take the journey that Forest fans have been on these last 2 seasons anytime . I’ll never understand the mindset of the ambition minimalists who are more concerned with FFP and xG, than “ALP” (actual league position). When Patrick Patrick Bauer popped up with his memorable last min winner at Wembley in 2019, you can just imagine a couple of the Eric Hitchmough’s on here turning to the celebrating fans beside them, and saying .. “Nice goal, but we are now within 42p of breaching FFP”. You’ve conflated so many different issues there Occam’s Razor it’s almost insightful. For what it’s worth, I would also have preferred an owner willing and able to spend sheds loads of cash in a gamble to get to the Premier League. However, I wouldn’t then have screamed blue murder if it all went wrong and we ended up spending a season or two in League Two as a result. That, I’m sure, is a distinctly minority perspective, but what this debate reveals more than anything else (though perhaps not so much on this thread to be fair) is that there is an awful lot of cakeism around. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam’s Razor on Mar 19, 2024 16:12:34 GMT
Where I do agree with certain EFL clubs is that the nonsense of parachute money needs reforming.
Established for the right reasons (to stop PL relegated clubs going pop), its unintended consequence has been to create a Championship +1 league, where Yo Yo clubs are all but guaranteed to mount a promotion challenge every 2/3 years on the back of 🪂 cash.
West Brom, Watford, Norwich City, Leeds United, Leicester City and Southampton are the most blatant examples of this .
You can see why other EFL clubs feel that they cannot fairly compete.
|
|
|
|
Post by valley on Mar 19, 2024 16:14:01 GMT
What amount could our club spend without going over ffp rules ?.saying we went up and down the top league.
|
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Mar 19, 2024 16:33:16 GMT
When you say 'raising more capital and attempting to push for the Championship play-offs?' if the changes that I predict happen no capital will be allowed to be spent on the football team. It might enable the club to buy The Valley, for say £50m, and reduce the lease/rent payments of c. £500k (?) a year but other than that we won't be able to spend any more. That is, realistically, the only way a Regulator will be able to guarantee that clubs don't get into trouble. You are right about one thing though - many clubs will decide to gamble (shit or bust) by 'spending' a small fortune before the new rules come into effect. They will be the clubs that will look like Reading twelve months after the new regime starts. I would prefer not to be one of those clubs, personally, even thought there are a few on here that would love it, at the start, and then call for everyone's heads when it all goes tits up. There's no way that happens imo Maybe not all of what I have suggested will happen but if the clubs are limited to spending a percentage of their revenues (believed to be 65% in the Championship), and capital injections are not going to be considered revenues, then an investor could put £100m into the club but can still only spend c. 65% of revenue. You could scale that and put £10bn into the club but still only spend c. 65% of revenue. I'm not against the club 'having a go', and, let's be honest, our time in League One has, to a degree, come about due to the debts run up during our time in the Premier League and, especially, the two seasons after we came down when we gambled everything on getting back up again. If the club had cut costs and decided to build gently, and slowly, in 2007 then, within five years, we could have been back in the Premier League. We decided to throw money (we didn't have) at getting promoted in the first, and then second, season and allowed Pardew to blow a small fortune. Maybe that was the right approach; maybe it was the right approach but implemented badly; maybe it was just irresponsible, but we are still paying for it today. Like Mundell I would not have a problem with the outcome if it didn't work, but I do feel as though I have watched enough League One football now, and if we get up I'd be more concerned with not coming down again, personally. |
|
|
|
Post by valley on Mar 19, 2024 17:01:24 GMT
What amount could our club spend without going over ffp rules ?.saying we went up and down the top league. Maybe SR could answer I understand forest losses £66m allowed compared too £105m. |
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Mar 19, 2024 17:07:32 GMT
What amount could our club spend without going over ffp rules ?.saying we went up and down the top league. Maybe SR could answer I understand forest losses £66m allowed compared too £105m. It's £105m if you've been in the Premier League for three seasons? They deduct £22m for every season not in the Premier League. Forest were promoted in 2022 and as accounts are always twelve months behind that would mean they would have £105m minus £44m. Which comes to £61m. Happy to help. Incidentally, it tool me 30 seconds to find that on Google. Probably less time that it took you to ask someone else for the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by valley on Mar 19, 2024 17:10:39 GMT
Maybe SR could answer I understand forest losses £66m allowed compared too £105m. Presumably it's £105m if you've been in the Premier League for three seasons? Forest were promoted in 2022. Yep three seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Mar 19, 2024 17:11:53 GMT
Presumably it's £105m if you've been in the Premier League for three seasons? Forest were promoted in 2022. Yep three seasons. Clearly it took me longer to edit my first post. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by valley on Mar 19, 2024 17:15:13 GMT
Maybe SR could answer I understand forest losses £66m allowed compared too £105m. It's £105m if you've been in the Premier League for three seasons? They deduct £22m for every season not in the Premier League. Forest were promoted in 2022 and as accounts are always twelve months behind that would mean they would have £105m minus £44m. Which comes to £61m. Happy to help. Incidentally, it tool me 30 seconds to find that on Google. Probably less time that it took you to ask someone else for the answer. So if charlton fc Got there went down and up could lose £61m over three years .Don't give much money too run the club wages and fees?. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Mar 19, 2024 18:26:44 GMT
Methven talks about the regulator on the latest Where’s The Money Gone podcast. Worth listening to for the bits about Charlton.
Once again, he stresses that the key development will be wage to revenue controls in the Championship (UEFA’s Squad Cost Control ratio) which will mean the competition will be about revenues and player development.
He clearly believes that will help us and said it was part of his discussion with the investors. It’s equally clear that the investors do not intend to throw money at the problem (because they won’t need to and won’t be able to), but instead view the challenge as one of execution which explains the focus on management structure and process and will mean there is a lot of pressure to increase revenues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Mar 19, 2024 18:28:50 GMT
It's £105m if you've been in the Premier League for three seasons? They deduct £22m for every season not in the Premier League. Forest were promoted in 2022 and as accounts are always twelve months behind that would mean they would have £105m minus £44m. Which comes to £61m. Happy to help. Incidentally, it tool me 30 seconds to find that on Google. Probably less time that it took you to ask someone else for the answer. So if charlton fc Got there went down and up could lose £61m over three years .Don't give much money too run the club wages and fees?. The rules will have changed by the time we get to the Premier League valley It may not be possible for us to lose that kind of money in two to three years time and that’s just as well because my guess is that the investors won’t want to. |
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Mar 20, 2024 8:09:59 GMT
So if charlton fc Got there went down and up could lose £61m over three years .Don't give much money too run the club wages and fees?. It may not be possible for us to lose that kind of money in two to three years time and that’s just as well because my guess is that the investors won’t want to. So, you're telling me there's a chance! |
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Mar 20, 2024 9:16:28 GMT
It's £105m if you've been in the Premier League for three seasons? They deduct £22m for every season not in the Premier League. Forest were promoted in 2022 and as accounts are always twelve months behind that would mean they would have £105m minus £44m. Which comes to £61m. Happy to help. Incidentally, it tool me 30 seconds to find that on Google. Probably less time that it took you to ask someone else for the answer. So if charlton fc Got there went down and up could lose £61m over three years .Don't give much money too run the club wages and fees?. Remember that the TV deal is c. £120m a season. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Mar 20, 2024 9:23:22 GMT
The rules will have changed by the time we get to the Premier League valley It may not be possible for us to lose that kind of money in two to three years time and that’s just as well because my guess is that the investors won’t want to. So, you're telling me there's a chance! Don’t see why not!! Might as well be positive!! By the way, I thought this article in today’s Times was interesting. While obviously focused on Premier League clubs and the EPPP, there are elements in the article which resonate with what we’re seeing at Charlton. I continue to believe that the ownership group led, perhaps surprisingly, by Charlie Methven’s vision have an attractive and plausible strategy for the club. The question is whether they can execute. Nathan Jones was obviously “sold” on the project. Hopefully, he’s a good fit and willing to work within the structure and plans in place. |
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Mar 20, 2024 11:13:34 GMT
The rules will have changed by the time we get to the Premier League valley It may not be possible for us to lose that kind of money in two to three years time and that’s just as well because my guess is that the investors won’t want to. So, you're telling me there's a chance! On the basis that only the top two are promoted, one of the relegated teams will have to face the playoffs. Anything can happen in a one off game. Finishing in the top six, when there are only going to be three relegated teams (from the season before) means that you can finish miles (in terms of points) behind the clubs with parachute payments and only have to beat one of them, potentially, just once. Remember that if a relegated team fails in the playoffs the following season they will be weaker as they will have to sell more players. The parachute payments and their impact is going to be the hardest thing for the Regulator to deal with. Remove the Parachute payments completely and relegated clubs will, almost certainly, implode. If we assume that Premier League clubs will be allowed to spend 70% of their revenue, and the TV money is c. £120m, the wage bill will be in excess of £80m. No parachute payments and they will have to find more than £70m in the first year, alone. Even with no points penalties the clubs would have to sell everything not screwed down. They might take a punt in year one but failure in the playoffs will, almost, certainly lead to further relegations. Force clubs to run on Championship incomes, in the Premier League, and the bottom six will, probably, lose almost every week. Realistically, more than half of the teams would adopt the same approach. The relegated teams hardly get to 36 points now. That would make the top of the Championship more interesting and more clubs would get the benefit of a season in the Premier League. However, having ten clubs managing less than 30 points, a season, and the competitiveness of the Premier League, and the TV audiences, would disappear. The Premier League needs promoted clubs to splash the cash and to make a real effort in every game. Neil Warnock was, heavily, criticised for fielding a reserve team at Old Trafford just before he played us in 2007. That could well become the norm if half of the teams start to write off games against the top six. I'm not saying that I have the answers to the issues but I don't think that any Regulator will be able to square the circle. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam’s Razor on Mar 20, 2024 11:54:30 GMT
Will be interesting to see which of the 3 key players in the SMT survives the longest in the next 12 months.
My hunch is Rodwell, just.
|
|
995632
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 362
|
Post by 995632 on Mar 20, 2024 17:26:19 GMT
Will be interesting to see which of the 3 key players in the SMT survives the longest in the next 12 months. My hunch is Rodwell, just. What's this got to do with the EFL regulator? If anything, the ruling actually benefits us so should be better for "the 3 key players in the SMT". |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Jul 17, 2024 12:52:29 GMT
Bump
For those interested the King's Speech has featured three bills that ran out of time last time.
I heard from somebody ITK that the Football Regulator Bill is an easy one to bring back as had cross party support.
Unclear what the impact on Championship cost controls will be but have heard that some in Labour wish to address parachute payments.
We can be sure that details will follow, and that Methven will comment once he has a take on the new Bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by AndyAddick on Jul 17, 2024 15:05:49 GMT
Bump For those interested the King's Speech has featured three bills that ran out of time last time. I heard from somebody ITK that the Football Regulator Bill is an easy one to bring back as had cross party support. Unclear what the impact on Championship cost controls will be but have heard that some in Labour wish to address parachute payments. We can be sure that details will follow, and that Methven will comment once he has a take on the new Bill. if the FA did its job the political leeches wouldn't be required |
|
