Derek Chappell attending that meeting after spending 5 days in bed with flu and had not been at the game the night before either. What a nancy director I hear you call. Having cancelled previously due to Zabeel I think he felt duty bound to attend even if he wasnt feeling at his best.
So I just feel a sense of humanity about this and find this sniping a little over the top.
Are the club close to breaching any of their banking loan covenants in relation to their mortgage and overdraft and when are these facilities up for renewal? If banks are looking to reprice (heavily upwards) then are the Board of Directors committed sufficiently to consider repaying this debt by investing further funds into the club on better terms to save on interest costs?
I think this was fundamentally why the Directors invested more when they did. I really am getting pretty damned fed up with the criticism levelled at the Directors who helped in the financial restructure. By all means mistakes have been made but dont knock the guys when they stepped in and did what was in the best interests of the club at the time. If I was a Director reading some of this and the club are in the future faced with administration I would keep my hand firmly in my pocket and say sorry but not again.
I'm not sure that this is criticism of the directors as such but rather an understandable anxiety, given both the state of the economy and the decline of the Club on the field in that the pot of gold offered by the Prem is looking ever more remote, as to whether or how long the directors are prepared to continue supporting the Club.
It may well be coincidence, I am in no position to know, but the desperate state of the Club's finances has emerged around the time a comparitively unknown director, Derek Chappell, has come to the fore.
That lack of familiarity with Mr Chappell as opposed to Richard Murray, whose contribution, achievements and commitment as a fan are well documented and respected, may well be a factor in the prevailing uncertainty and anxiety.
I don't think the average Joe supporter who is not in the know and has not had the opportunity of meeting these people, as you and others have evidently done, can be blamed for being anxious in the present circumstances.
[cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]Yeh. Perhaps I am.
Derek Chappell attending that meeting after spending 5 days in bed with flu and had not been at the game the night before either. What a nancy director I hear you call. Having cancelled previously due to Zabeel I think he felt duty bound to attend even if he wasnt feeling at his best.
So I just feel a sense of humanity about this and find this sniping a little over the top.
I certainly don't think the original questions were out of order. Nor were Derek Chappell's answers out of order.
But they certainly do need some explaining, because his words are coming back to haunt him. And they could go down as his legacy at Charlton, without some sort of explanation and a continued downward spiral.
BTW, they questions were in no way meant to trap Derek, or Steve Waggott. They were direct questions that they answered. That, of course, is always appreciated at a supporters gathering.
But they are required to explain and answer questions at an AGM.
And the anwers to the those questions can all be done with numbers, rather than spin, if they choose.
How many points did Parky need to get the job after those 8 matches?
Did he get a raise, and if so, how much?
How long is his contract?
There is nothing inappropriate with any of those questions.
The board, or a director, should have no trouble answering any of them, although we all may or may not like the answers.
Sure, Derek Chappell boxed himself into a corner with his original answer. It was his answer, after all.
But he also has the opportunity to set it straight, and be done with it, too, with a further explanation.
If questions like those can not be raised, then what is there to hide? What is there to be afraid of?
We, and they, should never be afraid of the truth.
Having read the minutes from the initial Fans Forum meeting with Directors recently, it was clear that they all reported a lot of "negativity" from all stands (this was reported as if it was something of a surprise). On the basis that they are all pretty much unknown and anonymous to us, can they all be given bright red sashes to wear on matchdays with "Fans Representatives" boldly emblazoned on them so we can ensure they know the true strength and voice of the supporters they are representing. I feel it would really be beneficial in helping them get the message across as clearly as possible at future meetings.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Cardinal Sin[/cite]Having read the minutes from the initial Fans Forum meeting with Directors recently, it was clear that they all reported a lot of "negativity" from all stands (this was reported as if it was something of a surprise). On the basis that they are all pretty much unknown and anonymous to us, can they all be given bright red sashes to wear on matchdays with "Fans Representatives" boldly emblazoned on them so we can ensure they know the true strength and voice of the supporters they are representing. I feel it would really be beneficial in helping them get the message across as clearly as possible at future meetings.[/quote]
they have said they will be standing by signs in each stand before games so you can go up and speak to them then. Not something I, IMHO, think will work but they are giving it a go so good on them.
Alternatively they have all put their email addresses out so people can contact them direct with any feelings that they have
Are the club close to breaching any of their banking loan covenants in relation to their mortgage and overdraft and when are these facilities up for renewal? If banks are looking to reprice (heavily upwards) then are the Board of Directors committed sufficiently to consider repaying this debt by investing further funds into the club on better terms to save on interest costs?[/quote]
I think this was fundamentally why the Directors invested more when they did. I really am getting pretty damned fed up with the criticism levelled at the Directors who helped in the financial restructure. By all means mistakes have been made but dont knock the guys when they stepped in and did what was in the best interests of the club at the time. If I was a Director reading some of this and the club are in the future faced with administration I would keep my hand firmly in my pocket and say sorry but not again.[/quote]
This is just a question and no critisism intended, in fact i am not entirely sure how you jumped to that conculsion. As you say in your post, I am sure it is the reason why they invested money when they did and i thank them for doing that. I am simply asking whether they would do so again. Unfortunately since the Directors put in further funds the economy has got considerably worse, banks a lot more jittery and more likely to trip covenant breaches, and the clubs financials are unlikely to have improved so i would have thought there is a very real danger that we may be close to breaching whatever new covenants were imposed.
Should be an interesting AGM. Although a shareholder I am not sure I will be able to attend.
I am sure all questions will be answered fully and posted on here and discussed at length with varying degrees of satisfaction.
As for future Supporter meetings I have a feeling they will become somewhat sanitised affairs. We will need to ply the Director with volumes of alcohol so that they speak with a looser tongue. Of course with Martin Simons thats not really necessary.
Comments
Derek Chappell attending that meeting after spending 5 days in bed with flu and had not been at the game the night before either. What a nancy director I hear you call. Having cancelled previously due to Zabeel I think he felt duty bound to attend even if he wasnt feeling at his best.
So I just feel a sense of humanity about this and find this sniping a little over the top.
I'm not sure that this is criticism of the directors as such but rather an understandable anxiety, given both the state of the economy and the decline of the Club on the field in that the pot of gold offered by the Prem is looking ever more remote, as to whether or how long the directors are prepared to continue supporting the Club.
It may well be coincidence, I am in no position to know, but the desperate state of the Club's finances has emerged around the time a comparitively unknown director, Derek Chappell, has come to the fore.
That lack of familiarity with Mr Chappell as opposed to Richard Murray, whose contribution, achievements and commitment as a fan are well documented and respected, may well be a factor in the prevailing uncertainty and anxiety.
I don't think the average Joe supporter who is not in the know and has not had the opportunity of meeting these people, as you and others have evidently done, can be blamed for being anxious in the present circumstances.
I certainly don't think the original questions were out of order. Nor were Derek Chappell's answers out of order.
But they certainly do need some explaining, because his words are coming back to haunt him. And they could go down as his legacy at Charlton, without some sort of explanation and a continued downward spiral.
BTW, they questions were in no way meant to trap Derek, or Steve Waggott. They were direct questions that they answered. That, of course, is always appreciated at a supporters gathering.
But they are required to explain and answer questions at an AGM.
And the anwers to the those questions can all be done with numbers, rather than spin, if they choose.
How many points did Parky need to get the job after those 8 matches?
Did he get a raise, and if so, how much?
How long is his contract?
There is nothing inappropriate with any of those questions.
The board, or a director, should have no trouble answering any of them, although we all may or may not like the answers.
Sure, Derek Chappell boxed himself into a corner with his original answer. It was his answer, after all.
But he also has the opportunity to set it straight, and be done with it, too, with a further explanation.
If questions like those can not be raised, then what is there to hide? What is there to be afraid of?
We, and they, should never be afraid of the truth.
they have said they will be standing by signs in each stand before games so you can go up and speak to them then. Not something I, IMHO, think will work but they are giving it a go so good on them.
Alternatively they have all put their email addresses out so people can contact them direct with any feelings that they have
Are the club close to breaching any of their banking loan covenants in relation to their mortgage and overdraft and when are these facilities up for renewal? If banks are looking to reprice (heavily upwards) then are the Board of Directors committed sufficiently to consider repaying this debt by investing further funds into the club on better terms to save on interest costs?[/quote]
I think this was fundamentally why the Directors invested more when they did. I really am getting pretty damned fed up with the criticism levelled at the Directors who helped in the financial restructure. By all means mistakes have been made but dont knock the guys when they stepped in and did what was in the best interests of the club at the time. If I was a Director reading some of this and the club are in the future faced with administration I would keep my hand firmly in my pocket and say sorry but not again.[/quote]
This is just a question and no critisism intended, in fact i am not entirely sure how you jumped to that conculsion. As you say in your post, I am sure it is the reason why they invested money when they did and i thank them for doing that. I am simply asking whether they would do so again. Unfortunately since the Directors put in further funds the economy has got considerably worse, banks a lot more jittery and more likely to trip covenant breaches, and the clubs financials are unlikely to have improved so i would have thought there is a very real danger that we may be close to breaching whatever new covenants were imposed.
I am sure all questions will be answered fully and posted on here and discussed at length with varying degrees of satisfaction.
As for future Supporter meetings I have a feeling they will become somewhat sanitised affairs. We will need to ply the Director with volumes of alcohol so that they speak with a looser tongue. Of course with Martin Simons thats not really necessary.
Agh for the good old days.