Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

CHARLTON SIGN NEW CEO - DANE MURPHY (p13. Oh no they don’t)

1…34689…17

Comments

  • bolloxbolder
    bolloxbolder Posts: 7,962
    edited June 11
    sam3110 said:
    Remind me, do Man City own The Etihad?

    Do AC and Inter Milan own the San Siro?

    What about PSG and the Parc de Princes?

    Owning your stadium isn't the be all and end all of a club. It'll come, when he gets bored, we get rich enough, or he dies and his offspring don't want the hassle anymore
    Seriously, what are you on lately?  

    Without the Valley we have no physical assets to borrow against. Probably the main reason we have been run by spivs in the past
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,851
    Our situation is much more like Coventry,  where the stadium is owned by a less friendly party than the council 
  • soapboxsam
    soapboxsam Posts: 23,229
    edited June 11
    Chizz said:
    thenewbie said:
    TheAddicks4Ever said:
    Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good 

    and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…

    This is really good news for Charlton…

    Dare I say it…
    ”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”

    (oooh and it feels fine) 


    Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.

    We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
    a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valley 

    b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent 

    Which path would you prefer? 

    The path less trodden 🤔
    That is nearly a rhetorical question as 99.9% of the Charlton fan base would go for A.

    The 0.1 would I assume be the fans who said on that freezing cold night in Woolwich that they would rather be in League 2 and see Roland Duchatelet have no involvement with CAFC; Definitely not as a landlord.

    Buying the Valley and Sparrows lane can only come to fruition if and when the owners feel it's feasible.
    This may be at Roland Duchatelet passing and Rodney Duchatelet is prepared sell for the going rate on terms that are a fair compromise for the Duchatelet family and what we all care for:  Charlton Athletic football club because we all signed up for Life; read the small print of your fans contract, there is no escape clause 🤷🏻‍♂️
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,753
    A loan or two from Forest would be good. Hoping for the new Gallagher 🙏 
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,753
    Hassenhol said:
    Dave2l said:
    His CV is good....But he is American.

    Charlton and the U.S are two things that just don't go together. We are a proud small club.

    Is he going to be sensitive and is he going to be a twitter addict public relations ego maniac. 

    "Hey ass-hole I've been watching soccer my whole life so stop being such a jackass"

    "Oh my gaaad, this stadium isn't even full - whats going on here, and this weather sucks ass" 

    "What's that dudes name? Curb-ish-ley? But you guys call him curbs right?"
    Fortunately he said in one of the videos posted on here that he deleted his Twitter account because it was too much hassle, he's not too bothered by media 'noise', and he generally comes across as down to earth 
    I like him then. 
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,225
    killerandflash said:
    Our situation is much more like Coventry,  where the stadium is owned by a less friendly party than the council 
    And Coventry never had any issues, apart from having to move out!
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,734
    edited June 11
    Chizz said:
    thenewbie said:
    TheAddicks4Ever said:
    Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good 

    and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…

    This is really good news for Charlton…

    Dare I say it…
    ”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”

    (oooh and it feels fine) 


    Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.

    We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
    a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valley 

    b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent 

    Which path would you prefer? 
    It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club. 
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,890
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
  • ElfsborgAddick
    ElfsborgAddick Posts: 29,045
    eastterrace6168 said:
    All we need now is for the yellow toothed little Belgian to fu*k off, and we could feel like our club is there...

    ...little steps as they say...👍

    That is in the hands of our current owners.
  • The Prince-e-Paul
    The Prince-e-Paul Posts: 6,688
    jose said:
    His wiki suggests he might be part owner of Vitesse Arnhem.
    I assume that is no problem according to the rules, and he is free to work at Charlton.
    Just spoke to a couple of Dutch friends at lunch and was informed that he is having to sever his ties with Vitesse. They are sad as although not Vitesse fans, they said that's it is a club in terminal decline and a sad story. Been in Dutch news. 
  • Sponsored links:



  • Ducktapeshoerepairs
    Ducktapeshoerepairs Posts: 970
    jimmymelrose said:
    A loan or two from Forest would be good. Hoping for the new Gallagher 🙏 
    Nathan is not a fan of loans 
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,890
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
    You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.

    From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.

    Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.

    Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.

    Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".   
    Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side. 

    I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine. 

    I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else. 

    Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news. 
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,270
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
    You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.

    From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.

    Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.

    Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.

    Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".   
    Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side. 

    I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine. 

    I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else. 

    Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news. 
    Define "big" though. 

    Yes we won't be spending an 8 figure sum on a single player, but I highly doubt we'll spend all summer just signing free agents and Jones' mates
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,890
    sam3110 said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
    You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.

    From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.

    Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.

    Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.

    Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".   
    Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side. 

    I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine. 

    I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else. 

    Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news. 
    Define "big" though. 

    Yes we won't be spending an 8 figure sum on a single player, but I highly doubt we'll spend all summer just signing free agents and Jones' mates
    I can’t put a figure on it as not close enough to the numbers. I was merely alluding to what Gavin Carter had said about modest / sensible sums.  I don’t expect us to chase promotion but neither do I expect the constraints of Duchstalet as seen before upon getting in this league. 

    We are digressing though  as that was not my main point / query. 

    I’m curious what the disagreements were between CM and Rodwell. Maybe they were just jostling for status ? I don’t know. 
  • _uptheaddicks
    _uptheaddicks Posts: 149
    Airman Brown said:
    Chizz said:
    thenewbie said:
    TheAddicks4Ever said:
    Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good 

    and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…

    This is really good news for Charlton…

    Dare I say it…
    ”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”

    (oooh and it feels fine) 


    Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.

    We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
    a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valley 

    b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent 

    Which path would you prefer? 
    It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club. 
    Is it worth reading up on Squatters' Rights from 2030?
  • fenaddick
    fenaddick Posts: 11,055
    valleynick66 said:
    sam3110 said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
    You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.

    From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.

    Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.

    Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.

    Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".   
    Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side. 

    I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine. 

    I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else. 

    Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news. 
    Define "big" though. 

    Yes we won't be spending an 8 figure sum on a single player, but I highly doubt we'll spend all summer just signing free agents and Jones' mates
    I can’t put a figure on it as not close enough to the numbers. I was merely alluding to what Gavin Carter had said about modest / sensible sums.  I don’t expect us to chase promotion but neither do I expect the constraints of Duchstalet as seen before upon getting in this league. 

    We are digressing though  as that was not my main point / query. 

    I’m curious what the disagreements were between CM and Rodwell. Maybe they were just jostling for status ? I don’t know. 
    He didn’t say modest, he said SUSTAINABLE. A sustainable figure in L1 is different to in the Championship. It has to be enough to not cause financial risk but also give the football side a chance to succeed. 

    Regards CM, he has fallen out with people virtually everywhere he’s been involved in football. Think that track record speaks for itself. 
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,225
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
    You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.

    From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.

    Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.

    Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.

    Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".   
    Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side. 

    I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine. 

    I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else. 

    Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news. 
    Is it?  You've seen the budget for this coming season then?

    You said the same, constantly, for last season when we had the 4th or 5th biggest budget in the division.
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,890
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
    You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.

    From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.

    Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.

    Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.

    Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".   
    Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side. 

    I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine. 

    I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else. 

    Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news. 
    Is it?  You've seen the budget for this coming season then?

    You said the same, constantly, for last season when we had the 4th or 5th biggest budget in the division.
     Based on the ‘sustainable’ comment by GC. 

    You are focussing on the wrong part of my post though. I’m curious what they fundamentally fell out over. 
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,270
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
    You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.

    From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.

    Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.

    Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.

    Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".   
    Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side. 

    I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine. 

    I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else. 

    Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news. 
    Is it?  You've seen the budget for this coming season then?

    You said the same, constantly, for last season when we had the 4th or 5th biggest budget in the division.
     Based on the ‘sustainable’ comment by GC. 

    You are focussing on the wrong part of my post though. I’m curious what they fundamentally fell out over. 
    Well unless Carter, Methven or someone else on the board make an account and specifically post on here about it, I doubt we'll ever know
  • Sponsored links:



  • swordfish
    swordfish Posts: 4,234
    Airman Brown said:
    Chizz said:
    thenewbie said:
    TheAddicks4Ever said:
    Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good 

    and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…

    This is really good news for Charlton…

    Dare I say it…
    ”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”

    (oooh and it feels fine) 


    Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.

    We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
    a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valley 

    b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent 

    Which path would you prefer? 
    It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club. 
    I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,846
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
    You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.

    From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.

    Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.

    Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.

    Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".   
    Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side. 

    I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine. 

    I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else. 

    Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news. 
    Is it?  You've seen the budget for this coming season then?

    You said the same, constantly, for last season when we had the 4th or 5th biggest budget in the division.
     Based on the ‘sustainable’ comment by GC. 

    You are focussing on the wrong part of my post though. I’m curious what they fundamentally fell out over. 
    Sartorial disagreement.

  • eastterrace6168
    eastterrace6168 Posts: 22,527
    swordfish said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Chizz said:
    thenewbie said:
    TheAddicks4Ever said:
    Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good 

    and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…

    This is really good news for Charlton…

    Dare I say it…
    ”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”

    (oooh and it feels fine) 


    Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.

    We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
    a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valley 

    b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent 

    Which path would you prefer? 
    It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club. 
    I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.
    So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.
    Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
    So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷‍♂️

  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,846
    eastterrace6168 said:
    swordfish said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Chizz said:
    thenewbie said:
    TheAddicks4Ever said:
    Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good 

    and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…

    This is really good news for Charlton…

    Dare I say it…
    ”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”

    (oooh and it feels fine) 


    Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.

    We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
    a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valley 

    b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent 

    Which path would you prefer? 
    It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club. 
    I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.
    So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.
    Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
    So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷‍♂️


    Or extend the lease.
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,846
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
    You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.

    From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.

    Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.

    Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.

    Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".   
    Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side. 

    I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine. 

    I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else. 

    Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news. 
    Is it?  You've seen the budget for this coming season then?

    You said the same, constantly, for last season when we had the 4th or 5th biggest budget in the division.
     Based on the ‘sustainable’ comment by GC. 

    You are focussing on the wrong part of my post though. I’m curious what they fundamentally fell out over. 
    I think I answered, as far as I can, why Methven fell out with Rodwell and other senior managers but, as I said, that is just the little I have heard.  I don't think the club are going to wash their dirty linen in public much as we'd all love to see it.

    "sustainable" to me is a good thing EG not spending more than we can sustain over a long period rather than "premier league or bust".

    The new floodlights are another example of the club spending money rather than kicking that can down the road as has happened too often recently. 

    Lastly, Carter and the other owners aren't Sandgaard.  They are not shouting the odds, they are IMHO, under promising and, so far, over delivering.

    Hopefully, that continues next year, the year after and the year after that, you know, in a "sustainable" way.

    Don't contaminate my imagination with logical argument!
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,225
    bobmunro said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
    You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.

    From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.

    Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.

    Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.

    Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".   
    Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side. 

    I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine. 

    I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else. 

    Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news. 
    Is it?  You've seen the budget for this coming season then?

    You said the same, constantly, for last season when we had the 4th or 5th biggest budget in the division.
     Based on the ‘sustainable’ comment by GC. 

    You are focussing on the wrong part of my post though. I’m curious what they fundamentally fell out over. 
    I think I answered, as far as I can, why Methven fell out with Rodwell and other senior managers but, as I said, that is just the little I have heard.  I don't think the club are going to wash their dirty linen in public much as we'd all love to see it.

    "sustainable" to me is a good thing EG not spending more than we can sustain over a long period rather than "premier league or bust".

    The new floodlights are another example of the club spending money rather than kicking that can down the road as has happened too often recently. 

    Lastly, Carter and the other owners aren't Sandgaard.  They are not shouting the odds, they are IMHO, under promising and, so far, over delivering.

    Hopefully, that continues next year, the year after and the year after that, you know, in a "sustainable" way.

    Don't contaminate my imagination with logical argument!
    What would either of us know about being a director of a Championship football Club, Bob
  • swordfish
    swordfish Posts: 4,234
    eastterrace6168 said:
    swordfish said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Chizz said:
    thenewbie said:
    TheAddicks4Ever said:
    Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good 

    and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…

    This is really good news for Charlton…

    Dare I say it…
    ”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”

    (oooh and it feels fine) 


    Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.

    We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
    a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valley 

    b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent 

    Which path would you prefer? 
    It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club. 
    I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.
    So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.
    Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
    So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷‍♂️

    Tbh, I thought he could have been more vindictive about it when we were changing owners before, by refusing to reassign or agree new terms from the original lease, but those better informed than I don't seem to think he had full control over that option, or that it made no sense for him to do it financially.
  • eastterrace6168
    eastterrace6168 Posts: 22,527
    edited June 11
    bobmunro said:
    eastterrace6168 said:
    swordfish said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Chizz said:
    thenewbie said:
    TheAddicks4Ever said:
    Murph has resigned from Vitesse as he is joining Charlton as CEO it is reported… so all good 

    and many great reports from Barnsley and Forest fans…

    This is really good news for Charlton…

    Dare I say it…
    ”We’ve got our Charlton back…we’ve got our Charlton back”

    (oooh and it feels fine) 


    Sorry but we don't. Not yet. We don't own our own stadium and while we're absolutely moving in the right direction I think we need to see all these big moves and positive steps actually pay off before we say that we've actually got it back.

    We're closer than we've been for a very long time yes but I wouldn't say it is done just yet.
    a. promotion to the Championship in front of 45,000 Charlton fans, signing new players, hiring a CEO with a spectacular cv, tying Nathan Jones down to a long-term contract, continuing to rent The Valley, set the club on course to become profitable (eventually) thereby gathering investment and resources required to purchase The Valley 

    b. Buy The Valley, sign no new players for five seasons, lose Nathan Jones, sell all players with value, remain in League One, battle against relegation for several seasons, successively close stands in order to match rapidly dwindling crowds, save some rent 

    Which path would you prefer? 
    It’s highly unlikely the club will ever be profitable enough to buy The Valley, particularly at RD’s imaginary value. However, unless there is some kind of deal, the club’s future will be at risk by 2030 and force the owners to consider escape routes, either for themselves or the club. 
    I thought the lease expired in 2035, so presumably there's a break at 2030 giving Roland an opt out.
    So, if there's a break in the lease at 2030, which is only 5 years away, the situation will start getting more urgent very soon, even 2035 is no time at all.
    Can't see him anyway in the slightest being sympathetic to our cause the nearer we get to termination day, (by that i mean the end of lease).
    So we either find a way of negotiating a realistic price for The Valley as well as Sparrows, or face the consequences...🤷‍♂️


    Or extend the lease.
    Just like that, ain't life just a bowl of cherries...
  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram Posts: 57,825
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Henry Irving said:
    valleynick66 said:
    Airman Brown said:
    daveydanger said:
    As far as I understood, there was previously a division of labour where Methven was strictly commercial and “off-field growth”, Rodwell was “football operations”/training ground and Scott was recruitment and technical (players, basically). 

    If Dane Murphy is a credited with a lot of player deals, it will be interesting to see if they bother replacing Scott with a technical director… and what it means for Rodwell longer term. I guess Murphy will handle more of the transfer activity than Methven but less of the recruiting than Scott… basically letting Chapple and the manager focus on which players to get.
    That was the public line but I’m not convinced Methven was actually doing the job or that Rodwell was fully focused on the football side. I suspect it was just a cover story to explain Methven being put in a position where he could be held to account. Mind you, they were at loggerheads, as Charlie was with Warrick, so who knows how that could ever have worked?
    Do we know why they were at loggerheads?

    What were the disagreements- was Rodwell arguing for greater player spend for example?
    You appear to be desperate to discover that the club aren't spending enough money.

    From the little I know it was that Charlie made a lot of promises about commercial income he didn't deliver on, leaked worse than a cracked sieve and run up huge bar bills after games and those are just the snippets that I heard, there is almost certainly a lot more of which I have no knowledge.

    Carter came in towards the end of 2024 at the request of the main owners as they, IMHO, wanted to get a much better handle on who did what and the value for money that the owners were getting from various staff.

    Directly or indirectly as a result, IMHO, we've seen Methven, Scott and Commercial Manager Barry Higson all leave.

    Warrick is far more front and centre and Murphy has just come in which I think is both a major upgrade on Methven and significant financial investment as I don't think he would come cheap or be willing to give up his holding in Vitesse Arnham if he thought Charlton were trying to do things "on the cheap".   
    Mine was a question based on Rodwell being more focused on the football side. 

    I’m surprised their falling out would be on what you allege about CM expense. That’s more for the money men I would imagine. 

    I’m asking if there was a fundamental disagreement on direction /strategy rather than anything else. 

    Beyond that I think it’s clear we aren’t spending big on the playing side. That is established and not news. 
    Is it?  You've seen the budget for this coming season then?

    You said the same, constantly, for last season when we had the 4th or 5th biggest budget in the division.
     Based on the ‘sustainable’ comment by GC. 

    You are focussing on the wrong part of my post though. I’m curious what they fundamentally fell out over. 


    The new floodlights are another example of the club spending money rather than kicking that can down the road as has happened too often recently. 

    .
    My thinking was the ‘cost’ would be the back of shirt sponsorship and related advertising package. 

Categories

“Marketplace”