TNT CAS Trust News
WINTER EDITION
www.castrust.org
NUMBER 8 NOVEMBER 2014
EFFORD’S LAW TO PUT FANS ON BOARD FFP - BLOWN TO BITS GETTING HAMMERED ! CHAPPLE OF CHARLTON THE PRICE OF FOOTBALL FRIDAY, I’M NOT IN LOVE LEST WE FORGET
2
News
www.castrust.org/join
Welcome
to the 8TH Edition of CAS Trust News THESE ARE interesting times to be a Charlton Athletic supporter. On the pitch we are seeing our team – funded by one of the lowest budgets in the Championship – surprising everyone by hovering just below the play-offs. The summer signings are a remarkable success. Our League 1 championship survivors are as reliable as ever. Our Academy graduates are full of promise. Our manager has no hair, but we don’t care. There is also a lot going on off the pitch. Championship clubs have just voted through a change in their Financial Fair Play regulations. The Labour Party has published proposals which would give supporters the legal right for a say in how their club is run. The threat to Charlton and Millwall from West Ham’s occupation of The Olympic Stadium becomes ever greater. Our chief executive – disappointed by stagnant attendances at The Valley – has floated the idea of changing kick off times. All these issues are discussed in the following pages with, we hope you’ll agree, clarity and insight. In addition we carry an interview with chief scout Phil Chapple who explains that Charlton and Standard Liege cannot sign players without the other club agreeing first. We analyse the current cost of attending Championship football (we are the cheapest). Historian Clive Harris explains why a war memorial was unveiled before the match against Sheffield Wednesday last month. We hope you will find these articles interesting. Please find a few moments to complete our survey on kick off times and ticket prices (details on page 20). One of the functions of CAS Trust is to represent the views of supporters to the club and surveys like this one enable us to become better informed.
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
EFFORD’S LAW A BRIGHT NOVEMBER MORNING - I am lucky enough to be able to walk my son to his school nearby, then jump on the bike and pedal over to Eltham which only takes a few minutes and gives me a little morning exercise. My final destination is the local cafe near to the constituency office for Eltham MP and shadow sports minister, Clive Efford. Clive is well known to Charlton fans involved in the Valley Party as it is often claimed that he promised them he would buy them a pint for every vote they got. He assures me he has been misquoted on this. He does admit, however, to telling Barry Nugent and Steve Dixon that he would buy them a pint if The Valley party secured more votes than Charlton conceded goals. I’ve known Clive mainly since chatting at the ACV celebration back in the Spring when he was an official guest at The Valley along with Nick Raynsford MP and Greg Dyke. Since then we’ve met several times - at Parliament when he asked a number of
Trusts to come and talk to him about reforms in football, and at the Football Summit this year when he spoke on similar issues. We collared him for at least an hour at that event, probably longer, so by now he and I are fairly well known to one another. After parking my bike at his office - which looks like the middle of election night, rather than a month into an 8 or 9 month campaign – we head to the local cafe. It is perhaps the noisiest cafe I have ever been in despite being mostly empty which really isn’t great because I don’t do short-hand and am relying on a small audio recorder. I thank Clive for agreeing to the interview as he has been exceptionally busy talking to a lot of fan groups recently. The reason? He’s just announced a new policy that a Labour government would implement to change football for good in this country. Potentially a huge change that would finally give fans a legal say in how clubs are run. Clive stresses that a lot of research went into the preparation of the policy.
3
EFFORD ON FOOTBALL
News
Firstly, he has spent a lot of time listening to fan groups to find out what they want – in particular the umbrella groups Supporters Direct and the Football Supporters Federation. Secondly, the proposals have been thoroughly tested for their legality. He is very dismissive of “airy fairy promises” made in the past and by other parties to give supporters all sorts of rights which could never be delivered legally. He explains that, if elected, The Labour Party would present primary legislation to give fans a voice at board level. This would be achieved by requiring clubs to issue a “golden share” to a properly constituted and democratically accountable fans group (usually a supporters trust). This golden share would entitle the trust to 25% voting rights in the boardroom. They would have at least one board member and preferably two to avoid a single representative being bullied or overwhelmed. Of course, this would give fans a voice but not a veto - He fully
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
4
News accepts that it is unreasonable to expect someone who has paid a lot of money to purchase a club to then cede complete control to a supporters trust which has made no financial outlay. Clive is also very clear that supporters will need to shape up and take their responsibilities seriously. Fans will need to be organised and properly represented by a democratic group with rules and obligations. The supporter board members will have to accept the discipline of commercial confidentiality and will need to win the confidence of their fellow directors. This, of course, is nothing new to Charlton who had a supporter on the board for over a decade but the proposed legislation would include a requirement for training. I ask how the policy avoids the possibility of clubs using a structure of companies and boards so that the supporter representative is excluded from the meetings where real decisions are made. Clive is very clear about this. He stresses that he has been assured that the legislation will address that problem, and there is existing legislation in place to protect minority shareholders being mistreated or bypassed. The second thrust of Labour policy is that supporters groups would
have the right to purchase shares in the club. In the event of a change of ownership (defined by at least 30% of shares changing hands) then supporters would have a 240 day period in which to complete a transaction of up to 10% of those shares. This means that for example, if a
“ The policy doesn’t cost a penny and there is no reason why it shouldn’t be in the first Queen’s Speech after the election. ”
club is sold in its entirety, a supporters group would be able to own 10% of the club. He stresses that this would not hold up the sale – the supporters’ option would be sorted out after a sale had gone through. If a supporters’ trust took advantage of this right and was able to raise the money they would of course be exposed to the same risks as any other shareholders. I anticipate strong resistance from owners reluctant to have fans in the boardroom - Clive accepts this
and understands that some resistance may be based on poor previous experience. He gives an example of a director of a League 2 club complaining that their supporter representative was sending texts to other fans during a board meeting. But he reminds me that, when the policy becomes legislation, clubs resisting it will be in breach of the law. He strongly believes that there are plenty of responsible, articulate football supporters around who would be able to express the fans’ view in the boardroom and provide feedback to supporters in a way that doesn’t breach confidentiality. He says that it can only be advantageous for supporters to learn more about the reasons behind decisions on controversial subjects like ticket prices, naming rights and ground moves. And, of course, if an owner is “taking the club to hell in a handcart” at least a supporter will have had the opportunity to say “hang on a minute”. I am naturally cynical. An election is looming. How many times have football fans heard off-the-cuff announcements made or hinted at around this time ? I seem to recall safe standing being one such measure. Clive assures me he is genuine and that a great deal of time has gone into listening to what
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
and, in my opinion, it is the furthest any politician has gone on the issue. There are more details to iron out and of course we’ll have to wait and see if it happens and what legal challenges may arise. But, if it does happen in the form Clive suggests it will be a huge step in the right direction for fan influence in Britain. Maybe The Valley Party will end up buying him a drink ? Barnie Razzell
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
EFFORD ON FOOTBALL
supporters want and canvassing legal opinion. Having seen This means that him working the policy up for example, if a over the last twelve months I can certainly vouch for that club is sold in its at least entirety, a He also claims that the policy “doesn’t cost a penny” supporters and that there is no reason group would be why it shouldn’t be in the first Queen’s Speech after the able to own 10% election. of the club. I am impressed by Clive. He may be a Politician and a Millwall supporter but he he deserves credit. This is has listened to the supportpotentially a ‘champagne ers’ trust movement and moment’ for supporters trusts
5
6
News
IN A COLUMN for the club’s website, Charlton Athletic’s Chief Financial Officer, David Joyes described the Championship’s new Financial Fair Play rules as “bitterly disappointing”. Charlton voted against the proposed changes, but only five other clubs joined them and as result the new rules will be effective from next season. The new rules The current FFP regime in the Championship limited losses to £8m for last season, £6m for this season and to just £5m for next season. Clubs failing to comply with these rules faced sanctions either a transfer embargo or a fine if promoted. These sanctions will still be imposed on clubs who cannot demonstrate compliance for last season and, in principle, this will also apply this time next year in respect of the current season. However, as far as next season is concerned the picture will now be markedly different with clubs permitted to lose up to £39m on a rolling three-year basis, i.e. £13m per annum averaged over three years. To comply with the new rules, clubs losing more than £15m, but less than £39m, will need to provide evidence of “Secure Owner Funding” and “Future Financial Information” for two seasons ahead, but this is unlikely to be a problem for wealthy owners. Moreover, if a club has spent time in the Premier League, the FFP loss at that level will be applied to the three-year average so that a club with one season in the Premier League and two in the Championship, for example,
Financial Fair will be able to lose £61m over the three-year period. The new rules are a game changer. In his full, frank and informative article, Joyes said that Charlton operated with an FFP loss of £2.6m for last season with a similar level of loss forecast for this season. It is worth noting that the calculation of loss for FFP purposes excludes certain items known as “add backs” - principally spend on infrastructure and academy costs. This time last year Joyes informed us that these add backs totalled around £2m for the then previous season. It’s likely that this figure will be a little higher going forward suggesting that the club’s losses are running at or above £5m p.a., still some way above break even. Nevertheless, given that it’s already the case that the budget for our playing squad is small relative to others in the Championship, it’s not surprising the club is disappointed by the rule change. With greater financial freedom now available, this gap may well widen further, at least relative to some clubs. Why did Championship clubs vote for a rule change? David Joyes answers this question in his article so there is little point in repeating his comments here, other than to say that clubs, including Charlton, voted in their own interests. It also appears the Premier League exercised significant
influence through a combination of an incentive, in the form of increased solidarity payments, and, perhaps, a hidden threat that those payments might be reduced. Some might argue that the Championship’s FFP rules were inappropriate anyway so it is, perhaps, helpful to understand this perspective, not least since much depends on what the underlying objective of any FFP regime is. In England FFP was first introduced in League 2 with the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP). These rules were introduced in response to a number of clubs falling into administration and they seek to limit wages as a percentage of turnover. However, critically, the definition of turnover includes donations from owners and injections of equity, but with loans excluded. There is, therefore, no limit on losses. The objective is simply to ensure that any losses are securely funded and hence to ensure clubs don’t fail. SCMP is not about “fair play”, financial or otherwise. When the Championship introduced its version of FFP, the clubs went a stage further setting absolute limits on allowable losses, however funded, with a view to ending the arms race which had seen clubs spend increasingly aggressively to win promotion to the Premier League and then, eventually, simply to survive; The rules were entirely rational, but they clearly favoured clubs less willing
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
7
r Play blown to bi ts and able to spend and fund the resultant losses. The regime was, therefore, supportive of Roland Duchatelet’s financially prudent, long-term value creation strategy. However, the new rules will now enable the so-called benefactor model to operate and in this respect they are aligned with those operating elsewhere in the Football League and in the Premiership. Even the old regime made no pretence to ensure “Football Fair Play” because the rules made no attempt to address the significant differences in revenues between clubs. Whether the new rules genuinely seek to ensure a degree of “financial prudence” or simply represent a token gesture in that direction is a matter of judgment, but they are unlikely to represent a binding constraint on many clubs. Provided owners are able to demonstrate secure funding they’ll be free to spend at will. Why did the Premier League intervene? Premier League CEO Richard Scudamore made it very clear that he was opposed to the Championship’s FFP rules and intervened to engineer change. The reason, quite simply, is that what happens to clubs in the Championship is critical to the Premier League’s business model and to its TV deal in particular. The Premier League’s stunning success is a classic example of
a “winner takes all” dynamic, applied on a global scale, and it benefits from the virtuous circle of the highest aggregate revenues and consequent ability to attract many of the world’s best players. However, an important part of the success of the League is its competitiveness and, in particular, the battle for survival amongst clubs desperate to stay in the competition and willing to spend money in order to do so. Attractive parachute payments encourage relegation candidates to do precisely this, despite their risk of relegation, but what happens to them if they are relegated is important too. Undue financial constraints may not be helpful, at least not from the perspective of the Premier League. Moreover, if Championship clubs are severely financially constrained, as with the current FFP rules, they may be unable to compete if promoted. Much better, for the Premier League’s business model, if aggressive spenders in the Championship have already begun to assemble a Premier League squad. Scudamore was almost certainly keen to avoid a Championship comprised of clubs spending cautiously, but then unable and unwilling to spend money in order to compete if promoted. That may have weakened the Premier League’s winning formula. The Premier League had a real stake in the outcome of the Championship’s
FFP vote and was always likely to get what it wanted eventually.
Does disappointment mean change? The rule change has reduced the chances of Charlton’s current strategy succeeding. Put simply, it is likely to be harder to win promotion to the Premier League with the envisaged playing budget. That said, only time will tell what other clubs will do with their new financial freedom or how many will materially increase their budgets. The most likely short term outcome for Charlton is no change and, perhaps for a year or so, we can expect to see the current strategy continue. During this timeframe it should become clearer how the landscape in the Championship is going to evolve. If it becomes more competitive Duchatelet may need to review his strategy. If promotion is the target, will the purse strings be loosened so that the team can continue to compete? Or, alternatively, if financial prudence is a prerequisite will the “Baton” be passed on once again? The Championship’s new FFP rules represent a significant and disappointing development. It remains to be seen quite how disappointed we should be and how much change we might expect. Mundell Fleming
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
getting ha 8
THE LONDON Legacy Development Corporation’s lawyer has the hump. Two years ago he thought the European Commission were waving through the deal which installed West Ham as tenants of the Olympic Stadium. Yet now he finds himself having to write 26 pages of answers to questions from the EC. And all because of some pesky football fans. Or as the EC prefers to call us , “concerned citizens” His response was the latest outcome of an 18 month dialogue between the Charlton Supporters Trust and the EC about whether West Ham were in receipt of unfair state aid as a result of the Olympic deal. We started this because somehow the result of this “fair and open competitive process” had been predicted back in 2010 by the psychic duo Richard Murray and Peter Varney; and they had warned of the threat posed to Charlton by West Ham moving into the Olympic Stadium. The EC had already looked into similar deals with football clubs across Europe. We persuaded them to look again at this one. Everyone who followed Charlton to Upton Park in 1991 knows what a huge barrier the Thames represented. You really didn’t
want to use the Blackwall Tunnel unless you had to. The Olympics changed all that. The Jubilee line had already connected the Peninsula to Stratford. Now we had the DLR reaching down into Woolwich and the high speed Javelin into North Kent - Charlton territory! As soon as football was mentioned as the solution to the Olympic “legacy” Murray and Varney saw the threat. West Ham were the only possible occupants. But there was no way they could fill a 50,000 capacity stadium. The transport infrastructure would enable them to offer cheap tickets, south of the river. In Charlton territory. However that depended on the economics. If you are a business which can increase output by moving to a bigger site and building a bigger factory, you will only do this if your rental costs and building costs can be justified by increased sales. So the lower your costs, the more aggressive you can be on pricing to build demand for your increased capacity. West Ham’s owners saw the opportunity. The future of the Olympic Stadium had not been thought through. Only football could regularly fill the higher capacity stadium on a regular basis.
And only one football club had fans in the area who might come in numbers. Gold and Sullivan saw that they could get a new “factory”, with superb transport connections, for a silly rent. And best of all, get someone else to pay to kit it out to your specification. The taxpayer. Us ( how much do we pay? see box) But the EU has rules about State Aid – taxpayers’ money - being used to benefit one business to the detriment of others. Doubtless, some bright lawyers advised the politicians that the way to avoid infringing these rules would be to have a public tender. The problem with that is; if messrs Murray and Varney could predict in 2010 that West Ham would “win”, then why would a tender change such an outcome? Of course, it didn’t change anything, and nobody was surprised. But just because West Ham were the obvious tenants, no one could force them to bid and to move there. West Ham always knew that they held all the aces. The Government, and Boris Johnson were desperate for a “legacy”. But Gold and Sullivan did not need a new home for West Ham. They could dictate terms, because if anyone resisted,
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
ammered! they could just say “OK we will stay at the Boleyn”. West Ham of course won the tender because there was no other credible competitor. But the tender could not force West Ham to pay a specific amount of money. CAS Trust discovered that it is quite easy to engage with the European Commission on illegal State Aid and we therefore felt that we should take the issue up. We did this without consulting CAFC. We could do this as private citizens supporting our Club, but not acting on behalf of our club who have from time to time to try to do business with West Ham. It is a template for how Supporters Trusts can help their clubs; clubs have to play the politics of the football business they exist in. We as Trusts don’t have to play that game. We are customers of football and we are citizens. We can use our rights as such to support and protect our club. However we were naive about State Aid. Twice we put in complaints, the first constrained by the webform on the EC website, the second more expansive. Both were rejected, but in the process we gained some insight into the position of the LLDC. We were surprised by the petulant and
defensive tone their answer took. We also managed to get hold of the casework where the EC had ruled against five Dutch clubs. We learnt something important - the EC is interested in State Aid which gives an entity an advantage against competitors in other member states. We knew that of the five Dutch clubs, only PSV had been regular European players. But the EC had rules that the smaller clubs could also affect competition if they got a helping hand, because they competed in the Europe wide transfer market, and could then get into European competition. We argued that West Ham could never afford to build a new stadium like the Olympic with their own resources (and we used Arsenal as a precedent, both to show how a club had done it on its own, and to show
9
the cost of such a stadium). We argued that West Ham were getting “a leg up” against all other FAPL clubs, but the biggest effect would be on those who fell into their enhanced catchment area: Orient, Charlton and Millwall. We asked the EC to show specifically how West Ham’s case might differ from those of the Dutch clubs, if they failed to accept our demand for a formal investigation. This time it went very quiet. A couple of times we politely enquired, and the EC assured us they were working on it. Eventually after nine months they came back to us; again they told us that they had no grounds for opening a formal investigation. However attached was a 26 page response from the LLDC. From this we could see that the EC not only forced them to answer our points, one by one, but the EC added their own, (and one of those questions and the answer, seems to have been redacted, without explanation). We had also tried, using Freedom of Information rights, to get a copy of the rental contract between the LLDC and West Ham. The LLDC wriggled and squirmed in their attempts to avoid sending it. Eventually,
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
News
10
clearly in breach of the law, they sent “it” but with every word and number of any use blacked out, on the grounds of “commercial confidentiality”. We have now complained to the Information Commissioner about the response. This may take several months to work through, but the IC appear to be interested, asking us, in so many words, to “give us everything you’ve got on this matter”. However, despite the LLDC also demanding of the EC that we were sent a “non-confidential” version of their response (again redacting all useful numbers) we did glean two important facts about the deal from their response, which have not so far been made public •If they are relegated, West Ham pay a reduced rent (how much reduced, we currently don’t know) 2.While they share revenue from match day catering, West Ham get to keep 100% of the revenue from executive boxes and hospitality, the capacity for which at the Olympic is huge. Murray and Varney have always argued that it was this revenue that Gullivan and Brady were really interested in, and they will be happy to give away match day tickets so long as they fill those boxes. The LLDC response is, in our opinion full of holes (we will happily send copies of the response to Trust members on request). However from the narrow point of view of the EC, it doesn’t constitute unfair State Aid because the money lavished on the stadium refit does not
flow directly to West Ham. The LLDC argue (and the EC seem to accept) that the Dutch cases were different because the clubs already occupied the stadia which were improved. Without expert legal research and resource we are unable to challenge this point and to take this further with the EC. However EC rules are not the only basis for an argument in the
UK that far too much taxpayers’ money has been spent on this refit, and nowhere near enough spent by West Ham. It is more a matter for London and national politicians. However Supporters Direct advised us to first of all try to get press coverage of the issue, and approach politicians once that coverage has been gained. Very quickly they connected us with a journalist on one of the national papers who has WHO FUNDS THE CONVERSION OF THE already been covering the story. It OLYMPIC STADIUM? turns out that he lives 500 yards Newham Council: £40m Dept. of Culture Media and Sport: from the Valley and was readily able to appreciate the commer£37m cial threat to Charlton which, he Dept. for Communities and agreed, had up to now not been Local Govt. : £25m covered. At the moment the plan LLDC (including new overspend) is for him to await the findings : £73m of the Information CommisWest Ham: £15m sioner, since release of the rental n.b . West Ham do not have to contract may reveal further juicy pay their share until they have details of just what a good deal sold the Boleyn Ground West Ham have obtained. (sources, Guardian, 22.10.14, We don’t argue that West Ham LLDC submission to EC) should not be allowed to play the Olympic Stadium. They are, in WHAT WE ARGUED TO THE EUROPEAN our opinion, welcome to it. We COMMISSION : argue though that they should not •Thanks to this deal using get such a good deal that they taxpayers’ money, West Ham are can throw cheap tickets around instantly one of the biggest clubs in in the Charlton catchment area England, and can bid for players at because their operating costs the highest level under the deal are so low. Tax•They could never have funded payers’ money (our money) has this stadium themselves. been used to create a situation •This amounts to unfair State Aid, where Charlton are threatened as in the cases of five Dutch clubs by unfair competition from West Ham. We think this is the type of What the LLDC argued: issue a Supporters Trust is set up •The State money hasn’t gone to take on. We are sure that we directly to West Ham will have more to report on this •We had a free and open tender, subject soon. what else could we have done? Richard Hunt
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
11
CHAPPLE OF
CHARLTON BACK IN AUGUST 1993 Phil Chapple made a highly conspicuous debut for Charlton against Birmingham at The Valley. After three minutes of his first match for the club he was off the field having six stitches inserted in a head wound. Seven minutes later he returned heavily bandaged and, despite the stitches, proceeded to head the only goal of the game in the thrity eighth minute. He stayed on for the entire game (although Stuart Balmer was substituted) and left the field a hero. Twenty years later in his current role of chief scout he is all but invisible to supporters – but his influence behind the scenes is equally crucial. Phil had five seasons with The Addicks as a player – a solid figure at the back but also chipping in with 15 goals in 142 league appearances which makes him the most prolific central defender in the club’s history with a goals-to-game ratio as good as Colin Walsh and Colin Powell. He puts this success down to a combination
of positivity, anticipation and bravery (“or foolhardiness”). No doubt his three years “ruffling a few feathers” with John Beck’s infamous Cambridge United team gave him a good grounding into how to attack set pieces. He left Charlton in 1998 and moved to Peterborough but his career stalled as a
result of injuries and he started doing some coaching and scouting of future opponents. Alan Pardew later invited him to scout for West Ham and, when Pardew became Charlton manager, Phil joined him as chief scout. He says that he never planned to become a scout – he sort of
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
News
12
drifted into it - but an hour spent in his company Phil points to the summer before the promotion made it clear to me why managers and coaches season as an example of scouting working well. would seek him out in this capacity. He is a highly He gives credit to Peter Varney for recognisarticulate man who gives very careful consideraing that the scouting infrastructure needed tion to how he formulates what he says. He is strengthening as it was “down to bare bones” and clearly skilled at holding and sifting information to Tony Jimenez for funding that when he took and to making subtle yet vital distinctions which over. Beefing up the operation gave everyone a he puts into persuasive words. This ability means lift and Phil was able to spend time planning with that his assessments would be discerning, Chris Powell and Peter Varney before the end of compelling and well argued. You would, I’m sure, the previous season. There are lots of reasons find yourself inclined to respect and back his why any club may fail to land a player (“there are judgement. In a job where it would be easy to be usually a lot more nos than yeses”, he notes) but, overwhelmed by the amount of information comin the summer of 2011, Charlton’s preparation ing at you from other scouts, agents and managemeant they were able to sign most of their first ment such clarity and shrewdness are invaluable. choices which made a big difference. Although his job title is Chief Scout, Phil says As far as Phil is concerned character is crucial that the term “scouting” is going out of fashion in the Championship because, although not so to be replaced by “Talent technically skilled as the Premier “Any player Identification and RecruitLeague, it is so relentlessly ment”. He stresses that it physically testing. So how does Charlton are is not really about discoverhe judge character and attitude seeking to sign has ? This is where his network of ing players, but judging them - Bradley Pritchard contacts comes in as the best to be cleared with was a very untypical exsource of due diligence informaStandard first, and ample of an adult talent as tion is from people who have yet undiscovered. Crucial worked with the player. But a lot vice versa” to the process is what he can be gleaned from watching calls “scouting for today a potential recruit live over a and tomorrow” - ie. -knowing what the manager period of time. If there is a question mark about /coach wants both this week and in six month’s attitude the manager might say that he can live time. “The worst thing is to be unprepared” he with a player who impacts four games out of six as warns. So he has to be continually aware of the long as he has sufficient flair. I asked Phil whether potential availability of a number of players for he thought that Charlton were a club less likely every position, and to be constantly updating his to take a risk on a player who might be difficult to knowledge and assessments. For example, he has manage or who had character flaws. He took a been watching Francis Coquelin for several years more positive view - that the environment at the and, once he heard that he might be available club is an important factor (“this is a good club”) on loan, went to see him in the Capital One Cup and that potential problems are well managed. a few weeks ago and drew him to Bob Peeters’ Adherents of the film “Moneyball” might think attention. It was different with Oguchi Onyewu. that scouting is largely driven these days by The club were aware that they were vulnerable statistics and computer analysis but Phil is quick at centre back and had a list of names so, when to stress that this is just one part of the process. Michael Morrison went out on loan, they had to Although the club has lots of statistical data about move fast. Onyewu had been training with QPR its own players they don’t have access to detailed but was without a club and the fact that Bob information from other clubs, so Phil and his knew him from Belgium facilitated the deal. team watch a lot of live football from Premier
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
easier for one of our own under 21s to step up because they are at least better prepared for the intensity and physicality. However, he noted how Steve Caulker, Patrick Bamford and Jesse Lingaard had been successful loanees and had been able to step up, albeit over a number of loan spells. So what are the notable changes for Phil since the Duchatelet takeover ? The club has made budgetary savings and there are now fewer scouts than previously, but this is counteracted by access to a greater level of information through the scouting of the other clubs in the network. Phil now also has access to Wyscout - a website which provides footage of players from across the world. This saves time and money as he can make an initial assessment of a highlighted player and decide quite easily whether to disregard him or follow him up. Phil has always been used to working in a team and canvassing opinions about players. This liaison has now become a little more complex because any player that Charlton are seeking to sign on a permanent or loan deal has to be cleared with Standard Liege first, and vice versa. Coquelin had been on the radar for a while so was cleared some time ago. If both clubs were interested in the same player he assumes that M. Duchatelet would take a view as to where a player’s value could be maximised. At the moment he thinks it unlikely that any Charlton players will be leaving for Liege. Our squad is too thin and he doesn’t think our “peripheral” players are good enough to add a great deal to Standard. If a loan to Belgium was seen to be beneficial to both clubs it is not out of the question but he is clear that, in terms of maximising the value of a player, it is arguably better if they are playing in England. Phil feels very positive about the immediate future. He is optimistic that “The President” will be open to suggestions for strengthening the squad in the January window if the play-offs remain a realistic possibility. Richard Wiseman
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
PHOTOGRAPH/CAFC
League reserves down to non league. (There is no point in them watching Premier League games as they are not operating in that market.) There is a discipline that scouts have to observe to ensure that they focus on the players of interest rather than getting too engrossed in the match itself. They attend a lot of Premier League development squad matches trying to assess whether any of the young starlets might be able to make the adjustment to Championship football as a loanee or a signing. When I expressed the view that we didn’t seem to have had much success in the last few seasons with loan deals of this sort of player (Razak; Frimpong: Petrucci) Phil stressed not only how difficult it was to make the transition to The Championship but also how hard it was to assess which players would be able to do so. He said that in terms of style, tempo and intensity there was just no comparison between a category 1 under 21 game and a Championship fixture, and young Premier League players had not been trained to cope with the speed and tackling they would encounter at the division below. In Phil’s view it is sometimes
13
14
News
The DISCUSSION ABOUT the cost of football has been everywhere over the past couple of months, particularly driven by a BBC investigation which uncovered some uncomfortable truths surrounding ticket pricing. Charlton fared well in the investigation, receiving praise for its ticket pricing initiatives but English football as a whole took a bit of a battering. According to the BBC study (which looked back on ticket pricing increases since 2011) admission pricing across England’s
top four divisions is outpacing the rise in the cost of living by a rate of almost 2:1, with growth in ticket prices increasing by 11% over the period compared to 6.8% in living costs for the same timeframe. Average salary increases are even lower meaning those with less disposable income will find it harder and harder to justify attending football, eroding the game’s traditional support base amongst the working class. At £150 the BBC reported that our club have the most competi-
o tively priced adult season ticket in the top four divisions. Indeed only Eastleigh out of all the teams in the Conference have a season ticket priced under £150 for an adult. The Club have stated that “the £150 season ticket was introduced as part of the club’s strategy to make football affordable for fans from all sections of society and to try to boost attendances at The Valley on matchdays”. In addition Charlton’s matchday tickets are among the most competitive in the division with
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
15
of football some games starting at £15 for an adult ticket, surpassed only by Blackburn (£12), Derby (£10) and Sheffield Wednesday (£10) – and you won’t be able to watch football for less than £15 anywhere in Leagues One and Two. However, if competitive ticket pricing at the Valley is part of a strategy then a cursory glance at this season’s attendances show that the strategy doesn’t seem to be working yet. Despite the cheapest season ticket in 2012/13
costing £300 (double the block A price this term),the first eight home league games of last season yielded a cumulative attendance of 133,096 while only 127,014 have watched our opening eight fixtures this season under the new pricing structure*. This is even more curious given the undeniably better results this team have achieved in those opening games at home with four wins and four draws compared to two wins, three draws and three losses. So it seems that cheap(er) tickets plus improved results on the pitch haven’t equalled a busier Valley. Not part of the BBC report was the cost of away ticket prices for travelling supporters. This year an adult Charlton fan would have to have paid a total of £249 for tickets to all nine of our league away games**. The clubs we played in those games cumulatively reported to the BBC that their cheapest matchday ticket was £207, meaning an average premium of 20% for away fans, who often find themselves provided with the worst view and worst facilities in the stadium. This is despite the fact that away fans (for reasons of geography) will on average spend more per head to attend the game
in the first place. Some aspects of the costs of football are always going to be expensive. A replica jersey is alway going to be more expensive than an equivalent quality t-shirt. Pies at the Valley are the second most expensive in the division (£3.50, joint with Bournemouth and our London neighbours Fulham). It’s disappointing, but if you can’t afford the replica jersey or the pie it doesn’t fundamentally undermine the one thing that all football fans should have the right to do – go and watch your team. It seems as though our club are experimenting with ticket prices to try and find a solution which is fair and which encourages a full Valley. That is to be applauded but our attendances suggest that encouragement is falling on deaf ears. The question will be asked in certain quarters of SE7 (and perhaps Belgium) - “Why ? “. *the first eight home league games of last season included in their numbers two relatively high attendance games against Leeds United and a “football for a fiver” match against Wigan **these figures don’t take into account clubs who charge a premium for buying tickets on the day
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
@craigsloman
there life in S.E.1?
16
News
FRIDAY, I’m IN A RECENT BBC interview Charlton Director Katrien Meire floated the idea of switching some Addicks’ home fixtures to Friday evenings (and/or Sunday afternoons) in an effort to increase attendances. She intimated that English fans should not be wedded to Saturday afternoons for their fortnightly fix. Football fans can be a conservative bunch, and many will bemoan any move away from the three o’clock Saturday afternoon tradition. Beyond that, and while keen to see the club explore ideas to increase the fan base, this suggestion raises key issues regarding young supporters, away fans and West Ham United! Nonetheless, such ideas deserve objective examination, so let us look at some pros and cons. Television influence has, rightly
or wrongly, long since destroyed the sanctity of Saturday afternoon kick off times. Consequently finding one of the few remaining generally vacant slots for Charlton home games may have an attraction. But what impact would it have on the numbers coming through the gates? In the seventies and eighties a handful of clubs, including Southend and Tranmere, regularly played home games on Friday evenings. One main reason given at the time was to avoid clashes for fans who also followed bigger teams in London and Merseyside. This does not apply to us. Charlton is big enough to stand on its own, and most fans who do attend other clubs’ games follow non-league teams, with the Addicks prevailing in any clash. An aggressive promotional campaign by West Ham to bolster gates - necessary to fill their prospective home in the Olympic Stadium could target the fertile territory of fans ‘south of the river’, assisted by recently enhanced transport links. This will present a direct challenge to Charlton at a time when the Hammers could hold a strong hand on the field. It remains to be seen if a head to head battle for the traditional Saturday slot would be preferable to relinquishing that, and trying to claim Fridays as our own. To boost Valley crowds we need
to attract new people (or at least a return of the disillusioned former season ticket holders), so which groups of fans are likely to start attending if we were to make the move to Fridays? One reasonable argument in favour of Friday evening kick-offs is that it “keeps Saturday clear”. For most, a visit to the Valley takes the best part of four or more hours out of the day. A Friday kick off leaves the whole two days of the weekend free for other activities. Whether this is strong enough to overcome comfort with the Saturday habit is debatable. Supporters who regularly work on Saturdays would appreciate such a move, but how much would this be counteracted by those in the opposite camp? Rarer these days, but some fans play football on Saturdays, although in modern times most local games are safely tucked away on Sunday mornings. Consequently, this is unlikely to significantly increase numbers. And finally, what about transport? Travelling around SE London is rarely an easy experience, but, even so, the thought of contending with the Friday rush hour hardly fills one’s heart with joy! And let’s not forget those travelling from further afield. Overcoming work
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
17
not in Love
Is this really the cure?
commitments, plus more stressful travel does not make a journey from Maidstone, Medway or beyond an attractive prospect. So, who would the proposed switch drive away? There are two large groups who would be appreciably affected families/youngsters and away fans. Friday is not normally a ‘school night’ (although possibly a ‘homework night’), but one would expect resistance from some parents to their kids, especially junior school age, having regular late nights out. Result; less youngsters attending games.Add to that the challenge of attracting school/youth groups on promotional visits, Friday games would seriously impair the chances of ‘selling’ Charlton to those who we hope will form future generations of adult season ticket holders. Overriding all this though, and probably the strongest argument against, is the anticipated reduced attendance of away fans. There is little doubt the highest attended and most atmospheric games at the Valley are those which include the visitors filling the Jimmy Seed stand. The variance of away fan numbers is obviously the most volatile element of this equation. To take an example, we recently played Bolton Wanderers in midweek. Previously, we met
at the Valley towards the end of last season, on 18th April, in front of 15,773 fans. Of this Bolton broßught 924. The recent game attracted just 13,433 supporters, with Bolton supplying just 473. Clearly, there are other variables, and Tuesday is not Friday, however a loss of 451 fans is significant and takes some replacing. Let’s also look at Reading. Despite an inauspicious start to the season, they could potentially be around play-off contention come our meeting on 21st March 2015 an ordinary Saturday at the end of the winter. If Charlton maintain their fine start, this could be an attractive fixture, even a ‘six-pointer’. The journey from Reading is a reasonable one and under such circumstances one would hope they would bring 2,500 plus supporters, if not actually selling out the away end. Move the game to a Friday however, and you add the obstacles mentioned already. One imagines their travelling numbers would drop dramatically below 2,000. A further note of caution. Reference was made to “some games” moving to Friday. A mix of matchdays would seem a potential disaster to season ticket sales, encouraging a selective approach
with fans buying tickets only for games they can make. To conclude, the arguments that the suggested move would increase the numbers of Charlton fans on a regular basis are inconclusive at best; but even if those arguments are accepted, the parallel loss of away fans, as evidenced by Bolton, needed to make up the shortfall (and in high price brackets) just to return to the status quo, appears insurmountable. Not to mention such a move alienating the families that contain the future generations of Charlton supporters. We applaud some lateral thinking from the club management, but we believe this particular idea is doomed to failure. Limited to only 20 odd opportunities each year, focus must be on improving the current overall matchday experience and some sophisticated marketing of our Saturday product. STOP PRESS... Early responses to the latest Trust survey indicate that over 50% of respondents report that they would be less likely to attend Friday evening or Sunday afternoon kick-offs.
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
Steve Clarke
18
News
CAFC Museum Trustee and Historian Clive Harris gives the background to the moving ceremony and memorial unvailed at the last home game. “THIS IS YOUR CLUB, THIS IS YOUR HERITAGE...DON’T EVER FORGET IT” The sweeping views of our fine city from the steep steps of a sparsely populated and fast crumbling East Terrace gave way to the spectacle of Charlton 3 Grimsby 3 - it was March 1984. That day, as a fifteen year old Liverpool supporter from Hertfordshire courtesy of his uncle, I became a lifelong Addick, and the desire to further explore my South London heritage was awakened with a vengeance. Though I grew up in Welwyn Garden City both my paternal and maternal family hailed from south east London. My great grandfather left for war in 1915 from Eastcombe Avenue SE7 and the more questions I asked the more answers I got regarding our links with Charlton. We were a red and white family, more often than not with a hint of khaki thrown in. Charlton Athletic, positioned between the famous garrison town of Woolwich with its nearby munitions works to the east and Greenwich Naval College to the west has, from its very outset in East Street, had close links with the military. Long before Millwall or that other lot from Croydon became our footballing rivals, the mystery Kentish Mercury cartoonist “Addicker” depicts full blooded clashes and little love lost between the boys
Lest We Forget
of Charlton Athletic and the Army Service Corps. From our meteoric rise through the local leagues to the outbreak of war in August 1914 games against army units make up a sizeable portion of our fixtures. Now it was time for our boys to turn their thoughts to military life and put football on the back burner for the next five years. The following statement was made by Charlton Athletic after the armistice, “We have a war record of which we are justly proud. Some thirty of our members served in HM forces on the various battle fields of Europe. We regret that of this number, three have made the supreme sacrifice, while six others were wounded”.’ Sadly there was little further information on who they were and
there appears to be no mention of a memorial being planned for those that never came home. I believe there are three main reasons for this. Firstly, the club entered new ownership around this time. Secondly, turning professional was such a huge change to the club that the future would have undoubtedly overshadowed the past. Lastly, the move to our beloved Valley (which was funded in part by club president and war hero Sir Ion Hamilton Benn). The size of the upheaval this presented would have eclipsed all of the above. To my mind, given the timing of the move and the fresh hopes for the future, the Valley is in effect a memorial ground itself.
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
Why a memorial, ? After a brief ill-fated sojourn to Catford the club was to return to the Valley and when war returned in 1939 it came a lot closer to home than the green fields of Picardy or scorched plains of Suvla. The area and stadium itself was subjected to almost nightly raids between September 1940 & May 1941. The area behind the south stand, the covered end roof, the Royal Oak, the railway station and the Rose of Denmark - all well know local landmarks to “Addicks” - were damaged by the time the all clear again sounded in 1945. Post war the cup winning side visited the old battlefields of France. For some like Sam Bartram they were to think of their father’s exploits in the Great War. Sam’s dad had been awarded a Military Medal for bravery during his service. For others such as Jimmy Seed & Jimmy Trotter the mental and physical memories of 1914/18 were still very real and as the team stood under the Menin Gate and looked at the endless lists of names of the missing of Ypres they could not failed to have been moved by the enormity of it all. So why now, a century on have we as a modern generation put up a memorial on the
Valley ? The simplest explanation is that we can. The memorial is not a statement of glorification of war. It stands as a monument to sacrifice and recalls two important passages in our club’s rich history. It is neither a political statement nor a monument to social standing. It acts simply as a means to remember for us and future generations to come. Through the research of the late Colin Cameron, Richard Redden, Ben Hayes and myself we now know more about the early years of our club and their sacrifices in conflict than ever before. We know two of the names of those who never came home in 1918. Club Secretary Jim Mackenzie (died at sea on the SS Heron in 1917) and Fred Chick (Killed on the Somme near High Wood in 1916). We believe we are fast closing in on the third. Through my connections in the world of military history I was able to facilitate the memorial at no cost to the club and I feel extremely proud that, as we mark the passing of 100 years, we as a generation of the Charlton family have said we will remember themand are closer than ever to at least bringing the memory of those missing boys home. Clive Harris
19
Photographic update on the forthcoming CAFC Museum at the Valley, due to open in December. For further information : www.thecharltonathleticmuseum.co.uk
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
Top:Clive Harris at the museum, located in the North stand with one of the refurbished display cabinets. Left:Younger fan Joe Hayes looking through the hundreds of items that the museum has obtained.
Do you want Friday Football? Why don’t you travel away?
Do you think Charlton ticket
prices are fair ?
Charlton SupportersTrust Annual Free Prize Draw & Survey Make sure your voice is heard Complete the survey at:
Castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
News
21 21
MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS Help build a strong representative Trust Ownership of ÂŁ1 share in the Trust E - Certificate Free e version of quarterly Trust News Regular Trust updates Innovative website Access to member-only areas Stylish badge (available now) Help support Trust research and campaigns AGM rights (including the right to elect the board)
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
20
News
22 Membership ews Form
N
Your Details First Name
Last Name
Date of Birth
Email Address
Address
I wish to join the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust as a: Junior Member-Under 16( Free)-You must be under 16 Full Member (£5)- You must be over 16 and payment must be enclosed with this form The fee is for 1 years full membership and entitles the member to 1 years access to our members section and includes a Membership e-Certificate, Ownership of £1Share (whilst a paid member) and AGM rights. The fee is non-refundable, but membership can be cancelled at any time
Signature
Date
I enclose a cheque for£
Optional Information Internet How did you find us? Leaflet Are you a Charlton Athletic season ticket holder? Which stand do you normally sit in? North
Word of Mouth Yes No East
West
CAS Trust,c/o The Beehive 365 Footscray Road London SE9 2DR The Charlton Supporters’ Trust is registered in England and Wales as the Charlton Supporters Society Limited. Industrial and Provident Socirty number 31912R
THE CHARLTON ATHLETIC SUPPORTERS’ TRUST Complete the survey to enter our free prize draw@ http://www.castrust.org/survey3
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014
News
23
Only 63 badges left !
Stocks of the smart, eye catching but discreet CAS Trust lapel badge are dwindling fast. Badges are free on renewal of CASTrust membership or £2 to purchase. Pick up yours at our match day stall in Harvey Gardens behind The Covered End between 2pm and 2.45pm or contact secretary@ castrust.org
Celebrate Charlton this Christmas… q Back on sale for the first time in 20 years in a new, 320page, extended edition
q Fully illustrated history of The Valley from 1919, exile at Selhurst, the Lennie Lawrence years and the fans’ triumphant campaign to get home
q Now in quality paperback with three additional chapters, a new introduction and 50 extra pictures, many in colour
Board Chairman - Barnie Razzell Vice-chairman - Craig Sloman Secretary - Richard Wiseman Liaison - Ken Sinyard Membership Officer-Chris Knott Treasurer - Richard Pemberton Jonathan Bangs Richard Hunt Steve Clarke Web designer - David Hall Editorial - Barnie Razzell Sub Editor - Richard Wiseman Design & Layout, Photos - Ken Sinyard Additional Photos-CAFC, Getty images, Keith Gillard. except where indicates copyright CASTtrust 2014
q Includes for the first time full coverage of the emotional
Available at £9.99 plus P&P return to Floyd Road on from www.votvonline.com December 5th, 1992
Be part of the new era in fan participation at CAFC www.castrust.org/join
castrust.org/surveyautumn2014