That's my take on it as well. What I don't yet understand at all is whether a pre-administration pack may be under consideration and what the financial implications are. Keeping Parkinson makes financial sense in a way, but it will lose the club an lot of support plus Parkinson already appears to have lost the players. Is there a financial whizz amongst us as I would like to know if the use of a pre-administration pack allows the club to lose effectively lose its debts and contracts but, Phoenix like, still be allowed to start all over again?
Fascinating, AFKA. It's the most coherent explanation I've heard yet.
But one thing puzzles me. If this uneasy power struggle you postulate is the reality, I wonder why Richard Murray continues to be the fall-guy for much of the the dirty work? I'm thinking specifically of the way he was put up to make the ludicrous statement that the winless caretaker Pardky was ''overwhelmingly'' the right man to be given the job on a permanent bass...
As you say, there is no clarity whatsoever.And as I said earlier in this thread, I'm just glad none of them is running something that actually involves life or death decsisions, such as a heath trust.
Well i'm not sure all would agree with your interpretation of the fall guy. But if we are looking back on things, then Murray wasn't to be seen much publicly during the Les Reed period, and Peter Varney dealt with most of the media surrounding it. So sometimes your argument can be backed, sometimes it can't.
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.
I'm almost certain an element of that occured as well. Lets face it, if individuals put millions of pounds into a business, your nigh on sure they are going to have a strong opinion on how that business should be run.
But given that it was 'Derek' who told us that Pardky would be judged on his results, principles of accountability should have dictated that he took the lead in the annoucement of his appointment (clearly not on results).
If I remember rightly, Chappell did say something. But Murray was the up-front voice trotting out the frankly insupportable ''overwhelming'' line. So perhaps the division between them is not that great.. it suggests they are still pulling together to the extent of agreeing ''this is going to sound better coming from you''...but who really knows in this world of nod and wink?
[quote][cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]I'm almost certain an element of that occured as well. Lets face it, if individuals put millions of pounds into a business, your nigh on sure they are going to have a strong opinion on how that business should be run.[/quote]
Yes. And when they went back to private status, the need for 'corporate' behaviour receded, since they no longer had any institutional shareholders to worry about. I really regret now selling my shares when they did that and not asking what the future downsides might be. They are becoming very clear now.
So when Derek Chappell said at Bromley that it was Richard Murrays suggestion to have this structure in place and it was Richard who suggested DC for the new role
what Richard had really said to DC was
F*ck off if you think you can do a better job than me then you take over the PLC helm...or words to that effect.
Will watch and listen attentively at Wednesdays AGM
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.
I realise that by posting anything on this thread I only fuel Ben's conspiracy theories, but nevertheless . . .
Richard Murray is NOT the majority shareholder. He is the largest shareholder, and according to the annual accounts he has (from memory) about 25 per cent of the shares, but that is not a majority.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]This is the key point i've been trying to highlight for months. There is no clarity whatsoever.
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
That is as good a summation as I have read, given the information at hand!
[cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]So when Derek Chappell said at Bromley that it was Richard Murrays suggestion to have this structure in place and it was Richard who suggested DC for the new role
what Richard had really said to DC was
F*ck off if you think you can do a better job than me then you take over the PLC helm...or words to that effect.
Will watch and listen attentively at Wednesdays AGM
Yes, please watch and listen, and ask questions, and let those of us that can't be there know the answers!
One thing i hope we can all agree on, that from the supporters side asking pertinent questions at the AGM is ten times more appropriate and hopefully effective than by other forms of demonstration.
And with that in mind, the club should use the situation to be up front and informative with supporters.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]This is the key point i've been trying to highlight for months. There is no clarity whatsoever.
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
That is as good a summation as I have read, given the information at hand!
[cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]So when Derek Chappell said at Bromley that it was Richard Murrays suggestion to have this structure in place and it was Richard who suggested DC for the new role
what Richard had really said to DC was
F*ck off if you think you can do a better job than me then you take over the PLC helm...or words to that effect.
Will watch and listen attentively at Wednesdays AGM
Yes, please watch and listen, and ask questions, and let those of us that can't be there know the answers!
I dont want to ask any questions. I am quite happy to listen. My trust may be misplaced but thats the way I am.
I am sure you will have an army of informants who will feed you back all the little titbits you want but I wont be one of them.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]And with that in mind, the club should use the situation to be up front and informative with supporters.
And directors should realise there is nothing sinister in being asked hard questions by those that care enough to be asking them.
Whilst agreeing with most on here especially AFKA's take on things I must say that in all my years of having met Directors and been to AGM's and supporters club do's I cannot recall one occassion where any director has baulked at answering a difficult question.
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.
I realise that by posting anything on this thread I only fuel Ben's conspiracy theories, but nevertheless . . .
Richard Murray is NOT the majority shareholder. He is the largest shareholder, and according to the annual accounts he has (from memory) about 25 per cent of the shares, but that is not a majority.
quite so, my mistake. I meant to say largest shareholder but my point still stands.
Going to defend Ben here, as he no longer sits on the board as the fans director, why are people constantly badgering him for who said what, who did what, when they did it, like the rest of us now, Ben can only give an opinion, not answers.
Yes he may be more in the loop than most on here because of his recent involvement, but that does not mean he has all the answers either.
You certainly did ask questions of Derek at the Bromley meeting but you did not, to my memory, ask anything about his "low profile" or relationship with Richard Murray.
There was a questions asked about finance which Derek answered at length and explained the matrix system, the veto he believed directors should have and the reasons for and the nature of the bond scheme.
But yes, other than that he didn't tell us anything ; - (
He turned up, which you were sure he wouldn't - if fact you said that he would hide behind Steve Waggott. He answered the questions yet you still say he keeps a low profile. At how many other clubs does a PLC Chair turn up and answer unscripted questions. Richard always has and now Derek does. I think Richard does it better than Derek but that's maybe cos he's had more practice or is just a different person.
I also notice that Steve Waggott, previously a target of yours AA - described as "Chappell's man" is now off the agenda. I wonder why
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]One thing i hope we can all agree on, that from the supporters side asking pertinent questions at the AGM is ten times more appropriate and hopefully effective than by other forms of demonstration.
And with that in mind, the club should use the situation to be up front and informative with supporters.
Totally agree. Can't be there but I hope sensible questions are asked and points raised about where the club is going and what the plans are for the future.
Shirty5 was collating questions but as Brunello says when have the directors ever ducked meetings or questions? Other than when Rothchilds stopped them coming to Bromley I can't think of one example.
I don't know if he was totally happy with every decision made. I would have thought it unlikely that a CEO would agree 100% with every decision made in any company regardless of how well it was doing. A CEO - Waggott as well - is an employee. What I do know is that Steve Waggott wasn't even employed by Charlton Athletic FC or PLC until Peter stepped down so how he came to be blamed I don't know. Then again I see that the three of you aren't mentioning him anymore.
The point being made was that it was on Varney's "watch". AA/Doug's term not mine.
If you can blame Waggott and Chappell for all the decisions on their "watch" then you have to blame Varney for all the decisions on his "watch" if you follow your logic
I'm not blaming Peter or any individual board member, other than maybe David White, for the clubs problems. Boards make collective decisions so they all have to take the credit and they all have to take the blame. How much or how little a share is another debate. In the real world goodies don't wear white hats and baddies black hats. There are many shades of grey.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]One thing i hope we can all agree on, that from the supporters side asking pertinent questions at the AGM is ten times more appropriate and hopefully effective than by other forms of demonstration.
And with that in mind, the club should use the situation to be up front and informative with supporters.
Indeed, but you had better make the most of it this week; if the Club goes into administration, there will be no more AGMs which supporters can attend.
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Ben..are you being funny/sarcy here re Dave White as is often your way....or are you serious...difficult to know on this occassion?
Totally a joke, apologies to Dave or anyone else.
Sometimes I try to inject a little light into the darkness and f*** up totally.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]As for Varney Prague Addick,
I don't know if he was totally happy with every decision made. I would have thought it unlikely that a CEO would agree 100% with every decision made in any company regardless of how well it was doing. A CEO - Waggott as well - is an employee. What I do know is that Steve Waggott wasn't even employed by Charlton Athletic FC or PLC until Peter stepped down so how he came to be blamed I don't know. Then again I see that the three of you aren't mentioning him anymore.
The point being made was that it was on Varney's "watch". AA/Doug's term not mine.
If you can blame Waggott and Chappell for all the decisions on their "watch" then you have to blame Varney for all the decisions on his "watch" if you follow your logic
I'm not blaming Peter or any individual board member, other than maybe David White, for the clubs problems. Boards make collective decisions so they all have to take the credit and they all have to take the blame. How much or how little a share is another debate. In the real world goodies don't wear white hats and baddies black hats. There are many shades of grey.
[quote][cite]Posted By: DA9[/cite]Going to defend Ben here, as he no longer sits on the board as the fans director, why are people constantly badgering him for who said what, who did what, when they did it, like the rest of us now, Ben can only give an opinion, not answers. Yes he may be more in the loop than most on here because of his recent involvement, but that does not mean he has all the answers either.[/quote]
I only speak for myself but the reason I ask Ben Hayes the questions I do is this: in order to work out how we get out of this mess, we need to understand clearly how we got into it. Anybody who has had Ben's level of access to the Boardroom (thanks to our mandate, and I personally voted for him) would have insights into what has been going on in the last three years. There may of course be things he cannot say due to legal restrictions, which of course we will respect. Otherwise I think it is essential that we use these forums to pool our knowledge and reach a consensus on what needs to be done to save the club from oblivion.
It is also essential that we put aside petty rivalries and jealousies, if we want to call ourselves true fans of Charlton Athletic. In this respect, should Ben Hayes wish to question whether I have an "agenda" or ulterior motive, he, or anyone else, is welcome to take me to task about my opinions, motives, background perspectives, etc on this forum. We need, urgently, to recreate the atmosphere of the Valley Party, and not that of the Supporters Club circa 1985 who piddled around arguing about away travel logistics while the club was busy moving to Selhurst Park.
Yes, but you also dont know whether Ben had to sign or agree to non divulgement of any board discussions or info, whether from a legal stand point, or as part of the pre agreed condition of the supporters director role, for say 18 months after he left the role, who knows, and if he did, he may not be allowed to say that he did, purely opinion on my part, and maybe complete tosh.
[cite]Posted By: DA9[/cite]Yes, but you also dont know whether Ben had to sign or agree to non divulgement of any board discussions or info, whether from a legal stand point, or as part of the pre agreed condition of the supporters director role, for say 18 months after he left the role, who knows, and if he did, he may not be allowed to say that he did, purely opinion on my part, and maybe complete tosh.
If that was the case, DA9, then the sensible thing would be for him to shut up. There would be no integrity in him mouthing incomplete or partial truths about the board when he knows the facts to be different, would there?
It is also essential that we put aside petty rivalries and jealousies, if we want to call ourselves true fans of Charlton Athletic. In this respect, should Ben Hayes wish to question whether I have an "agenda" or ulterior motive, he, or anyone else, is welcome to take me to task about my opinions, motives, background perspectives, etc on this forum. We need, urgently, to recreate the atmosphere of the Valley Party, and not that of the Supporters Club circa 1985 who piddled around arguing about away travel logistics while the club was busy moving to Selhurst Park.
I agree totally which is why I find these attacks on the board, hints and innuendos about "low profiles", "On his watch", "Chappell's man" so frustrating.
Rather than talking about who was holding the baby and at what time how about we move forward and ask what are we as fans going to do. What can we do and what can we ask the board to do, to explain, to act, to reassure.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: DA9[/cite]Yes, but you also dont know whether Ben had to sign or agree to non divulgement of any board discussions or info, whether from a legal stand point, or as part of the pre agreed condition of the supporters director role, for say 18 months after he left the role, who knows, and if he did, he may not be allowed to say that he did, purely opinion on my part, and maybe complete tosh.
If that was the case, DA9, then the sensible thing would be for him to shut up. There would be no integrity in him mouthing incomplete or partial truths about the board when he knows the facts to be different, would there?
I could say the same about people employed in management positions within the club which is where I think I came in in the first place.
Once again, I am talking for myself here, so feel free to take me to task on my own opinions.
Implicit in your remarks here today and others I have seen you make in the past is that the attitude of fans is in some way to blame for the current state of Charlton Athletic Football Club. That is preposterous. All kinds of outside observers have heaped praise on Charlton fans over the last 20 years, and recently journalists have remarked with some awe at our 'patience'. Our gates have held up remarkably well. No Charlton players have received the routine abuse that is dished out at e.g. Spurs. The board and directors have not received anything like the criticism and abuse that has been dished out at, e.g. Southampton. Everybody on this list is a stakeholder in the club, and most of them have poured money into it from modest incomes. They have the right to find out who is responsible for the current situation and to hold them to account for the decisions they took. And they (the fans) do not have to do anything in return. You do not have to join in any dialogue that you don't wish to, of course. Furthermore, you may be constrained from doing so on some matters, as DA19 mentions. But if you believe that people are making unwarranted criticisms of directors or their decisions, might I suggest you do it on the basis of facts at your disposal rather than attempted slurs on the writer? For the record my opinion re Waggott remains unchanged and I haven't said anything more because I have no new information. My main concern about him remains that Richard Murray was excluded from the latter part of the selection process when he was appointed. This has been put directly to David Sumners on the mailing list and David has chosen not to deny or correct this. Anyone else's views on Waggott are their own. Should you wish to address my opinions, I'm more than ready to discuss it with you, here, in public. But I don't think it is currently the most important issue.
Comments
But one thing puzzles me. If this uneasy power struggle you postulate is the reality, I wonder why Richard Murray continues to be the fall-guy for much of the the dirty work? I'm thinking specifically of the way he was put up to make the ludicrous statement that the winless caretaker Pardky was ''overwhelmingly'' the right man to be given the job on a permanent bass...
As you say, there is no clarity whatsoever.And as I said earlier in this thread, I'm just glad none of them is running something that actually involves life or death decsisions, such as a heath trust.
I'm almost certain an element of that occured as well. Lets face it, if individuals put millions of pounds into a business, your nigh on sure they are going to have a strong opinion on how that business should be run.
But given that it was 'Derek' who told us that Pardky would be judged on his results, principles of accountability should have dictated that he took the lead in the annoucement of his appointment (clearly not on results).
If I remember rightly, Chappell did say something. But Murray was the up-front voice trotting out the frankly insupportable ''overwhelming'' line. So perhaps the division between them is not that great.. it suggests they are still pulling together to the extent of agreeing ''this is going to sound better coming from you''...but who really knows in this world of nod and wink?
Yes. And when they went back to private status, the need for 'corporate' behaviour receded, since they no longer had any institutional shareholders to worry about. I really regret now selling my shares when they did that and not asking what the future downsides might be. They are becoming very clear now.
what Richard had really said to DC was
F*ck off if you think you can do a better job than me then you take over the PLC helm...or words to that effect.
Will watch and listen attentively at Wednesdays AGM
I realise that by posting anything on this thread I only fuel Ben's conspiracy theories, but nevertheless . . .
Richard Murray is NOT the majority shareholder. He is the largest shareholder, and according to the annual accounts he has (from memory) about 25 per cent of the shares, but that is not a majority.
That is as good a summation as I have read, given the information at hand!
Yes, please watch and listen, and ask questions, and let those of us that can't be there know the answers!
And with that in mind, the club should use the situation to be up front and informative with supporters.
And directors should realise there is nothing sinister in being asked hard questions by those that care enough to be asking them.
I dont want to ask any questions. I am quite happy to listen. My trust may be misplaced but thats the way I am.
I am sure you will have an army of informants who will feed you back all the little titbits you want but I wont be one of them.
Whilst agreeing with most on here especially AFKA's take on things I must say that in all my years of having met Directors and been to AGM's and supporters club do's I cannot recall one occassion where any director has baulked at answering a difficult question.
quite so, my mistake. I meant to say largest shareholder but my point still stands.
Yes he may be more in the loop than most on here because of his recent involvement, but that does not mean he has all the answers either.
Give him a break guys.
You certainly did ask questions of Derek at the Bromley meeting but you did not, to my memory, ask anything about his "low profile" or relationship with Richard Murray.
There was a questions asked about finance which Derek answered at length and explained the matrix system, the veto he believed directors should have and the reasons for and the nature of the bond scheme.
But yes, other than that he didn't tell us anything ; - (
He turned up, which you were sure he wouldn't - if fact you said that he would hide behind Steve Waggott. He answered the questions yet you still say he keeps a low profile. At how many other clubs does a PLC Chair turn up and answer unscripted questions. Richard always has and now Derek does. I think Richard does it better than Derek but that's maybe cos he's had more practice or is just a different person.
I also notice that Steve Waggott, previously a target of yours AA - described as "Chappell's man" is now off the agenda. I wonder why
Totally agree. Can't be there but I hope sensible questions are asked and points raised about where the club is going and what the plans are for the future.
Shirty5 was collating questions but as Brunello says when have the directors ever ducked meetings or questions? Other than when Rothchilds stopped them coming to Bromley I can't think of one example.
I don't know if he was totally happy with every decision made. I would have thought it unlikely that a CEO would agree 100% with every decision made in any company regardless of how well it was doing. A CEO - Waggott as well - is an employee. What I do know is that Steve Waggott wasn't even employed by Charlton Athletic FC or PLC until Peter stepped down so how he came to be blamed I don't know. Then again I see that the three of you aren't mentioning him anymore.
The point being made was that it was on Varney's "watch". AA/Doug's term not mine.
If you can blame Waggott and Chappell for all the decisions on their "watch" then you have to blame Varney for all the decisions on his "watch" if you follow your logic
I'm not blaming Peter or any individual board member, other than maybe David White, for the clubs problems. Boards make collective decisions so they all have to take the credit and they all have to take the blame. How much or how little a share is another debate. In the real world goodies don't wear white hats and baddies black hats. There are many shades of grey.
Indeed, but you had better make the most of it this week; if the Club goes into administration, there will be no more AGMs which supporters can attend.
Totally a joke, apologies to Dave or anyone else.
Sometimes I try to inject a little light into the darkness and f*** up totally.
A White'r Shade of Pale.
Yes he may be more in the loop than most on here because of his recent involvement, but that does not mean he has all the answers either.[/quote]
I only speak for myself but the reason I ask Ben Hayes the questions I do is this: in order to work out how we get out of this mess, we need to understand clearly how we got into it. Anybody who has had Ben's level of access to the Boardroom (thanks to our mandate, and I personally voted for him) would have insights into what has been going on in the last three years. There may of course be things he cannot say due to legal restrictions, which of course we will respect. Otherwise I think it is essential that we use these forums to pool our knowledge and reach a consensus on what needs to be done to save the club from oblivion.
It is also essential that we put aside petty rivalries and jealousies, if we want to call ourselves true fans of Charlton Athletic. In this respect, should Ben Hayes wish to question whether I have an "agenda" or ulterior motive, he, or anyone else, is welcome to take me to task about my opinions, motives, background perspectives, etc on this forum. We need, urgently, to recreate the atmosphere of the Valley Party, and not that of the Supporters Club circa 1985 who piddled around arguing about away travel logistics while the club was busy moving to Selhurst Park.
If that was the case, DA9, then the sensible thing would be for him to shut up. There would be no integrity in him mouthing incomplete or partial truths about the board when he knows the facts to be different, would there?
Once again, I am talking for myself here, so feel free to take me to task on my own opinions.
Implicit in your remarks here today and others I have seen you make in the past is that the attitude of fans is in some way to blame for the current state of Charlton Athletic Football Club. That is preposterous. All kinds of outside observers have heaped praise on Charlton fans over the last 20 years, and recently journalists have remarked with some awe at our 'patience'. Our gates have held up remarkably well. No Charlton players have received the routine abuse that is dished out at e.g. Spurs. The board and directors have not received anything like the criticism and abuse that has been dished out at, e.g. Southampton. Everybody on this list is a stakeholder in the club, and most of them have poured money into it from modest incomes. They have the right to find out who is responsible for the current situation and to hold them to account for the decisions they took. And they (the fans) do not have to do anything in return. You do not have to join in any dialogue that you don't wish to, of course. Furthermore, you may be constrained from doing so on some matters, as DA19 mentions. But if you believe that people are making unwarranted criticisms of directors or their decisions, might I suggest you do it on the basis of facts at your disposal rather than attempted slurs on the writer? For the record my opinion re Waggott remains unchanged and I haven't said anything more because I have no new information. My main concern about him remains that Richard Murray was excluded from the latter part of the selection process when he was appointed. This has been put directly to David Sumners on the mailing list and David has chosen not to deny or correct this. Anyone else's views on Waggott are their own. Should you wish to address my opinions, I'm more than ready to discuss it with you, here, in public. But I don't think it is currently the most important issue.