Long-time Central Coast Mariners owner Mike Charlesworth has today announced plans to put Gosford-based club on the market.
What this means for the club’s future is not clear. While the club’s preference is to stay on the Central Coast, there is the possibility a new owner will seek to relocate.
If a new investor cannot be sourced, Charlesworth will hand the club’s license over to FFA.
“After ten years of involvement with the Mariners, I feel the time is right for me to now step aside and to look for a new investor to take on the ownership of the club,” Charlesworth said.
The Englishman first invested in the Gosford-based side over ten years ago and has held a majority stake since 2013. He tasted immediate success as owner, winning a championship that season.
But since then, the Mariners have struggled to remain competitive.
Charlesworth hanging the for sale sign is a move Mariners fans have been calling for after years of underachievement. Despite last night’s win over Melbourne Victory, the club’s fourth last-place finish in five years was confirmed.
Charlesworth admitted the Mariners require more funds to compete in the A-League.
“We’ve struggled in recent years through a lack of investment, now is the time someone must be found to drive it forward,” Charlesworth told The World Game.
The owner had been looking for investors to take over the club since earlier this year, but complications stemming from COVID-19 dried up the market.
Charlesworth conceded it had become difficult to stay in touch with day-to-day club matters from the other side of the world. He now has an idea of what kind of ownership he would like to see succeed him to secure the club’s future.
“Ideally, we’ll find the right investors and a local chairman who have the best interests of the club at heart.”
In the wake of the news, Mariners CEO Shaun Mielekamp has called on fans to stay patient while the process to find new investment continues.
“Stay strong, Mariners fans. This is a daunting but hopefully exciting part of our wonderful history,” Mielekamp tweeted.
It will be a long off-season for Mariners fans with the club’s future again up in the air. The club will return to action when the amended 2020-21 A-League season kicks off in December.
Newie
Guest
It's hard to disagree with what you've said.
Micko
Roar Rookie
I love that movie! :stoked: Thanks for the clip. :thumbup:
At work
Roar Rookie
Damn straight, the classic movie BASEketball covered it very well years ago :laughing: :unhappy: : https://youtu.be/ivzrbp_WR8w
At work
Roar Rookie
I dunno, the Central Coast is already covers a pretty large geographical footprint. Plus I'd think people of the central coast would hate to be linked in with Sydney, in the same way many people in the Illawarra don't like being linked with Sydney, or being classed as southern Sydney
Micko
Roar Rookie
What do you mean Pete?
Micko
Roar Rookie
CCM would be better being a joint Central Coast/northern Sydney franchise that plays some games out of northern Sydney. It seems the overwhelming majprity of Sydney FC fans are in southern Sydney, so the Mariners claiming the north shore should help acquire fans and talent.
Micko
Roar Rookie
I'd hate for Australian sport to adopt this dopey yank model of travelling franchises.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Maybe letting their geographical spread increase to northern Sydney would help?
Micko
Roar Rookie
Maybe expanding the geography of the club to be a northern Sydney team might help them?
Micko
Roar Rookie
Would CCM be best served as a franchise that covers northern Sydney as well, and play a lot of games out of North Sydney Oval & Brookvale?
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
South Melbourne is definitely a real club, members owned, it has a long-term lease on Lakeside, probably a better arrangement than pretty much every A-League club (sorry, I mean every A-League franchise). As we see in the Mariners example, it's the owner who owns the real estate, he can just sell the license to play in the A-League and continue ownership of the property assets, in part, that's because the Mariners are represented by a license and nothing else. They don't actually exist as such. The license can be sold off, whoever owns the license can locate a team wherever they want. South Melbourne is a members owned entity, it has a real existence, it's only the FFA's policies which has stopped it claiming its rightful place in the top tier of Australian football. If we had a proper football set-up in Australia, the Mariners would have been relegated long ago, and a club like South Melbourne (or the Melbourne Knights for that matter) may have got an opportunity to move up. That's real football.
Nick Symonds
Guest
Branding Abroad in the Americas In August 2015, Rayo Vallecano purchased the majority of Oklahoma City FC, a NASL expansion franchise which had yet to officially play a game renaming the club to Rayo OKC, despite the stadium increasingly needing work. Rayo OKC folded after a year or so due to Rayo Vallecano's relegation from the Primera División and a dispute between the co-owners of Rayo OKC, led to less finance for the U.S. side. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayo_Vallecano
Nick Symonds
Guest
F.C. Pinochio are a real club: https://www.facebook.com/FC-Pinocchio-553325901411628/
pete4
Guest
Real club like South Melbourne? Who doesn't own a stadium either the old Middle Park is owned by the state government Cross town the Melbourne Knights do own their stadium so I assume you should really be calling them a real club
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
That article answers a lot of questions. The real estate is actually owned by Charlesworth, the Mariners have zero ownership interest. We should not be surprised by that. The Mariners are just a franchise. The only thing they have of value is a license to compete in a closed league (actually take that back, Charlesworth owns that too). There is no actual club, in fact, there is nothing. This is very similar to the WU model. WU will NOT own the land and stadium. The property developers who own the WU license will be the ones who own that bit of real estate. It sort of underscores everything wrong with the franchise/licensing system and why we need to open up the competition to real clubs like South Melbourne.
pete4
Guest
Says Charlesworth owns the COE under separate business name https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/mariners-boss-in-talks-to-sell-club-to-owner-of-rayo-vallecano-20200806-p55j6o.html
Marcel
Guest
The COE, despite the hype, has always been just a less than excellent office building with a couple of training fields next to it...it's not really a Mariners asset.
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
Rodger may not be too far off the mark, afterall, they all share some revenue items equally, and the FFA still owns all the IP. You'd think Victory might worth more because it has the runs on the board with memberships, attendances and having a few years of profits. Apart from that, no real reason to assume City's license would be worth much more than the Mariners' license.
Rodger King
Roar Rookie
I wonder who owns the COE, if it is all part of the one club, then the A League license will include it. If it is just a stand alone business, then whoever owns it can sell it to whomever they please.
Rodger King
Roar Rookie
I agree, I have never been a bit fan of either of those two locations to host an A League side. I know there are some who are advocating on their behalf, but second teams in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth should come well before either of those two. I know that will get shouted down but it is what should happen.