I was thinking about the comments recently which suggested that to question Derek Chappell about the Parkinson appointment saga was to indulge in sniping which could result in them walking away with their money. Since the AGM is coming up soon, I'd like to say that i disagree with that, and that it goes beyond respect, into deference. Respect is due particularly to the original directors who invested to get us back to the Valley, particularly Murray, Simons, and Mike Stevens who lives in the USA. "Deference" is when people say we have no right to ask questions, especially if they assume a critical tone. That's both wrong and dangerous. Firstly, we are all investors in this club. We will be relatively far more important next year, because the Sky money will run out. We will be the main revenue stream again. Be in no doubt too, that directors need our approval to satisfy their interest in being directors. If they did not get a thrill from the theatre of football arenas, they would simply invest in their son's park teams. So we have a right to ask all relevant questions, with due respect certainly, but assertively.
In particular, Derek Chappell needs to answer American Addick's question, for this reason: He and all our directors are businesspeople (of various types) but nearly all of them will in the past have had to hire or promote a senior manager based on the premise that they prove themselves based on results. That is exactly what he did with Parkinson. And he laid down the time frame. There is a case to answer. A big one. Neither AA nor i can be at the AGM. I hope several of the rest of you will agree with me and feel able to ask that question, loud and clear.
0
Comments
I can't think of in many other lines of work/business where you look at the balance sheet and cashflow and go - I know, we'll not hire anyone, we'll try to keep it tight, but ultimately the man we have in charge is not going to rescue the business and so it's only going to go downhill unless we do something dynamic and appoint a manager who can make the best of the assets that we have, motivate the staff and start the long hard struggle back to where we hopefully can put this business.
The investors in this club have earned our respect and I am sure that while clearly decisions have been made which are regrettable they were made with the best of intentions.
The board are being visible attending supporters club events and having the fans forum. We need to engage with the board positively, respectfully and not be afraid to ask the difficult questions.
I have had a downer on Chappell since the very early days of his appointment. In fact him coming on here earlier in the season with the grammar of an 8-year old frankly only annoyed me further. He has been completely absent from the frontline where leaders are required not indiscernible lightweights.
His money has been more than welcome and I applaud him for supporting the club financially and emotionally but if he thinks he is less accountable as a football club chairman than a hospital owner, then he is hugely mistaken.
Asking the difficult questions is what as stakeholders, either fans, shareholders or both should be doing, in respectful way, yes, but not ducking the main issues.
I agree to an extent, but do the directors look at us as a money making business, or a labour of love that requires investment from them on a personal level?
Dont forget, the majority of the board are Charlton supporters, and those in from the offset of our relative rise to to success in the past 10-12 years, would certainly not have committed on the basis of making money or running a succesful business, merely to establish us as a well run club with stability, if money came along because of that, then all fine & dandy, but I dont believe that was their original aim. I believe our board play a balancing act with the above (or try to), not like a lot of boards who insist on a return & profit.
Mistakes have been made IMO, by whom, I dont know, I dont dislike Parky, he had to pick up a demoralised squad in the first place, and the rot started way before him, I think given time he will get it right, unfortunately I think that will come in League 1 next season when he has a small budget to play with and the whole summer to plan properly.
I think DC is getting a disproportionate amount of criticism. The Board have made collective decisions.
Perhaps its simply the case that DC doesnt have the personal charisma of Richard Murray and many have not warmed to him.
But from my reading of several threads along a same theme I think its a bit of a case of respect for Mr Murray and deference for Mr Chappell.
Anyway hopefully the AGM will clarify some of the questions that fans want answers too and we can all move forward as a united fanbase behind the Board,management and players.
[quote][cite]Posted By: PragueAddick[/cite] "Deference" is when people say we have no right to ask questions, especially if they assume a critical tone. That's both wrong and dangerous.[/quote]
The basis of deference is based upon trust and/or knowledge and is purely a subjective individualised judgement, If I respect and trust the board then I will 'defer' to their 'superior' judgement.
Alternatively if my deference is based on the idea that the board are more aware of the extent of the current financial situation then I will defer to their knowledge.
I for one respect the board, I defer to their knowledge but it wont stop me asking questions at the AGM.
I think it is shocking the amount of abuse the board are getting, all of them want what is best for the club, time and time again they have put their money where their mouth is.
Murray, Varney and Co led what can be seen as the Halcyon days of the club over a long period of time.
Chappell and Waggott have both come in at a difficult time and should be afforded the time the other board members have been given.
Critical questions yes, but we should not lose sight of the intentions and desire of this board to improve the situation at the club.
Same here, I respect the board completely, but it should not stop me asking questions should I choose to do so, they are not beyond scrutinisation and are not made of Teflon, but I still believe they have nothing but the best intentions.
Cant have you agreeing with me, people will talk!
I like Elvis as well. And I'm a Charlton fan. We could be twins!!
If Derek Chappell is getting a disproportionate of criticism, it is for a couple of reasons:
1.) He has, most likely by choice or his personal style, kept a very low profile as chairman of the Plc. It is on his watch that so many things appear to have crashed and burned, yet very little has been heard from him about it.
2.) On the few opportunities when he has spoken, such as at Bromley, he made the now incredulous statement that caretaker manager Phil Parkinson's permanent appoint would be subject to getting "results" during his crack at the whip. And we all know that Parky got no results, yet got the job anyway. That statement now looks either very foolish or incredibly naive in the context that it was made.
Derek Chappell seems like a nice fellow. I have no doubt that the things that he has done, the decisions that he has influenced, that he felt he was making in the best interests of the club.
We aren't sure exactly what those decisions have been, because he has kept such a low profile, but we know that very little has gone right since he became chairman. And with so much going wrong, whomever is in that hot seat is going to have criticism directed their way.
Just like at Bromley, he will have an opportunity to explain himself at the AGM. For better ore worse, the shareholders/supporters will either accept those answers or not. But at the very least, should come away with a better understanding of how and why those decisions were made. And perhaps an understanding if mistakes are being corrected, or a warning if they will be repeated.
Since March 08 Chappell has been PLC Chair. So for the rest of the 2007/8 financial year ending June 08 which is the last for which we have accounts Richard Murray was "on watch" while the CEO for the entire "watch" was Peter Varney.
So Derek keeps a supposedly low profile. He's quoted in the programme and he came to a supporters' group meeting in Bromley in his first year in post. Pretty much the same as Richard Murray then. What else has he not done? What other supporters' groups has he turned down? What public appearances has he dodged? Doug, you were very sure that he wouldn't turn up at Bromley but he did. I don't remember you asking him many of the questions that you had posted on here only days before either.
I know you have an agenda with Chappell and Waggott - and for all the wrong reasons IMHO - as we discussed personally it at Bromley at length, but other than the statement over keeping Parkinson and the "low profile" what have you actually got proof of what he,personally, has done wrong? RIchard has had 15+ years to build a relationship with fans and in very different circumstances but Derek is given less than a year.
Maybe the reason what he said about Parky turned out to be incorrect was due to Richard Murray being the one who was calling the shots on the football side as that is actually his job and he is the majority shareholder. Maybe it is all Richard Murray's fault. After all it was Richard making the public statement on why Parky was kept on.
Or maybe there is another reason, maybe Richard, Derek, Bob Whitehand et al felt keeping Parky on was the best financial and football decision. I can't see it myself at the moment but I thought that Richard was wrong to just sack Steve Gritt and Curbs should have gone as well. Just as well it was Richard in charge then rather than the fans as I would guess many would have agreed with me.
The board collectively have made mistakes. No question in my mind. Appointing Dowie and giving him too much too spend being the biggest. Pardew was welcomed by a vast majority of fans on this site at least. Parky wasn't but IMHO it was the best available decision at that time. I'm puzzled as to why he was kept on but I have a lot, a very lot, of respect for the board - but not deference - to know that they did what they did for what they felt were the right reasons.
Over dinner, she asked me what was going in my life since we last saw each other. With blundering banality, I told her about Charlton (she hates football, and we normally avoid the subject). I let out all my pain , told her about all the hopeless decisions the board has made, the dumb appointments, how clueless Pardky was, and how the world was going to fall in if we lose to Palarse tomorrow.
She then told me about what she's been doing over the last few days. She also said in passing that if those in charge of Charlton had been running a health trust, the secretary of state would have stepped in and removed them long ago.
It sort of made all my anger slip away. Instead, I'm just desperately glad that 'Derek' and 'Richard' and 'Alan' and 'Phil' have been running my football club and not my wife's hospital.
When Charlton are relegated, it's a shame and if it makes us feel better, we can point our fingers at the mismanagement of those who let it happen. But none of us are going to die. Perhaps we should all remember that.
...........
To be fair besides appearing at the Bromley meeting, he has posted on here a fair amount. A poster calling himself Derek Chappell has posted here and as far as I know he is legit. I don't think he's been on recently though. Maybe Afka/Lookie could confirm that this poster actually was DC?
He hasn't kept a low profile? Of course he has. And if that is the way he prefers to do business, then so be it.
You sure hadn't expected me to turn up at that meeting, and if you recall, I asked at least a half dozen questions.
Since my accent is a little bit different, I am sure that others at the meeting recall my asking as many questions, if not more, than anyone else there. Including the one of what would it take for Parkinson to be given the job on a permanent basis.
You may "know" that I have an agenda. But I don't know that. I have no personal agendas against anyone.
I would like answers on what has gone wrong, and why they have gone wrong, from a board's perspective, that we may not know about or be able to understand because we don't have enough information.
Perhaps things like 'Luke Varney had to be sold to raise money to pay off Pardew,' or that 'Parky was going to get the job no matter what he did as caretaker' -- if they happened to be true.
Yes, Richard Murray had a number of years to develop a unique relationship between the board/chairman and supporters, and something that was fairly unique and to Charlton's credit. And yes, Derek Chappell has not had the same amount of time to develop anything similar. But the level of communication from the board has not been at the level that Charlton fans have become accustomed to, and at a time when we are looking to the board for some real answers that will keep the belief that things can and will get better.
I don't think the supporters/shareholders want maybees. I think real reasons are what shareholders/supporters are seeking.
Perhaps if we still had a Supporters' Director on board, we would have already known some of those answers.
Being the last of the Supporters' Directors, you would know better whether that would have been the case or not?
I agree with your views on Dowie and Pardew. I disagree on Parkinson. I think it made perfect sense to hand him the caretaker's role. I was not at all opposed to that, nor giving him a timeframe to see if he could do the job.
But you, me and everyone else at Bromley that night heard Derek say that his permanent appointment would be based on "results."
Given his statement, and the ensuing results, what would you expect people to think ... or to ask as a follow up?
If it was someone else's decision, then say that. If it was a collective decision, then say that. If results had nothing to do with it, then that was certainly the wrong thing to say.
I don't believe that anyone is out to demonize the board, collectively or individually.
These are very difficult times for the club. Difficult times often call for difficult decisions, and accountability for those decisions.
But they are also a time when difficult questions are going to be asked, and should be answered. Even if the answers are difficult to provide.
Yes it was. He appeared two or three times.
Ben
Are you clear about who is running this club? I am not, and would appreciate it if you could share any insights with me, and everybody else. Why exactly did Derek Chappell replace Richard Murray as plc chair? If, as you say, Richard Murray is in charge of football affairs, why was it Derek Chappell who made the announcement concerning Parkinson? Do you happen to know if all three major shareholders - Murray, Chappell, Whitehand - specifically conferred and agreed on both the interim and permanent appointments of Parkinson?
I do not know whether you have any insights, I realise that it is some time since you stood down as Supporters director. But if you do, for heaven's sake put them on the table, and do not allow yourself to be sidetracked by pondering the real or imaginary "agendas" of fellow supporters. There is only one agenda. How to save the club we have all put our hearts and souls into. Crucial to this agenda is to establish what is going on in the boardroom. We keep talking about the Board as if they are a functioning, united body. I suspect you know better than most that this is not in fact the case. we need therefore to know what divides them and what vision each of them has. Then we can decide which ones to back. If in fact Derek Chappell is the one with the right vision then I will back him. I'd just need a lot more reason than I have at present to give him that backing.
Peter Varney. You say that he was CEO right up until the end of the financial year. Technically this is true. However he had announced his resignation much earlier. February, was it not? And as with any CEO in the job for along time, we can assume it was not a snap decision, so he will have been contemplating it much earlier in the season. Are you implying that you believe Peter Varney was comfortable with the decisions taken 'on his watch' that season? And that he simply resigned because he was a bit knackered and felt like some more quality time with his family? Do you share Steve Brown's publicly stated view that his departure was a huge and significant loss for the club?
My take is as follows and is probably 100% innacurate :-)
Murray allowed Dowie funds that took us outside our comfortable budgeting, on the hope of getting the new tv deal, and on the knowledge we could get decent wedge for Darren Bent. This then carried on into Pardew's regime in attempts to get us back up. Certain other board members raised concerns that too much risk and not enough corporate governance was being applied, with the outcome that Murray losing key support, and was pushed aside with Chappell and Whitehand stepping up to become the main decision makers. Except Murray couldn't be pushed fully out as he and his family have too big a financial commitment in the club, and is still publicly seen as the main accepted face at top level.
So what you end with is an uneasy power struggle at the top of the club, one where it is not publicly known on what side the real decision making process is taking place. The confusion is compounded by our decline, with serious investment now effectively wrote off, a concern that all investment may well be completely wrote off, and an unwillingness on most fronts to sink any further investment into what is appearing to look a sinking ship with no rescue boat in sight.
Just my take
Seems like a good summary to me , with the only exception that I doubt whether "good corporate governance" was the basis for any boardroom disagreement. I suspect it was more personalised. But I stress that it's just my suspicion.