I'm sorry to get all soapbox-ish about this, but unless of course there is some form of family emergency (in which i'll withdraw this immediately), i find it absolutely incredulous that both the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a PLC meeting.
Particularly given the current state of the club, and the unique nature of this meeting. Particularly if you have an actual role in the resolutions asked to be passed.
If this was a date neither of them could honestly make, then it should have been rearranged.
Richard Murray was outed as Chairman of the PLC, yet through proxy remains its chief spokesman.
It should not be him. If you put yourself up for Chairman and Deputy Chairman roles then you are the ones that stand up and give explainations, take the applause and deal with the brickbats. Not the bloke who was outed.
Am i wrong to be stunned ?
0
Comments
As I said on the other thread I was surprised that Bob Whitehand wasn't there. Less so Derek Chappell but it's a valid question when as you say he is Chair of the PLC.
In their defence it is the School holidays and as was said they have already given the money to the club and this was to formalise the agreement. It could have been that this was the earliest date possible and it was better to get the meeting done and the deal tied up rather than wait for a date when all were available.
But for the prosuction it does sent out a negative message as you say and adds fuel to the fire. It would have been much better if both had been there IMHO or at least that their non attendance was explained.
if so, their absence is absolutly startling. Shame I'm not a shareholder (my brother and parents are) as I would have made it known to a wider audience.
good god, what is happening to this club.
It should not be him. If you put yourself up for Chairman and Deputy Chairman roles then you are the ones that stand up and give explainations, take the applause and deal with the brickbats. Not the bloke who was outed.
Am i wrong to be stunned ?[/quote]
In answer to your question mate No you are not wrong to be stunned,
IMO Richard is the one doing all the PR stuff because the club know deep down that we like the man we owe the man for the good times and we see him as no enemy.
Same Reason Kinsella was put on the MGMT bench i dont believe he was there for anything other than to deflect any anger towards the dug out and Parky.
An easy win win for the board most may disagree and that is fine i am not trying to satrt an argument but if i was part of a decision making team that was going to be coming in for some stick i would look towards having people alongside me known for thier Charlton cause, their Charlton through and through blood, if it went right i would look a genius, if it went wrong people wouldnt hate them.
Shame it is the 2nd sentance that has come true
No, only one of them was. The other gave a £0.5m loan without any assets being sold.
Don't agree with that at all. He was already part of the coaching team under Reed and Pardew.
Why less so ?
It was an extraordinary shareholders meeting, and he is the Head of the PLC, the top person.
He is the one person who should be there.
School holidays effect part time clubs, swimming lessons and creches, not extraordinary shareholder meetings of the PLC of a professional football club. It the Chairman and Deputy Chairman couldn't make it, it should have been put back a few days.
We've been arguing for a long time that our structure at the top is confusing and arguably a hinderence. Week by week we seem to get more examples that it is.
Just think that Chappell presence was not as required as the Whitehand or for that matter Hatter, as he was an "independent" director in this case.
I still think it was a PR mistake for him not to be there but having just put £0.5m in as a loan maybe he felt that was enough.
Then again maybe DC and RW are out in the Middle East with Peter Varney....... but let's not go there : - )
In that situation I find it rather remarkable that DC wasnt there publically to put his vote forward. His injection of cash has nothing to with the voting on these proposals. And it has nothing to do with voting by proxy.
It is a misjudgment that the meeting wasnt arranged for another time or he attended.
If there really were unavoidable reasons keeping him away, that's what the vice-chair is for.
For neither to be inattendance calls to mind Lady Bracknell's famous comment from The Importance Of Being Ernest...
Wish we didn't have to bother with this stuff and could just watch some decent football and go home happy at 4.55pm and not have to think about Charlton until the next Saturday comes...
LOL
let's not forget they are all fans and are hurting like us too
and they have families too and i'd say fcuk the meeting if it was gonna get in the way of the family holiday ;-)
Which scene did she say that in then?
Along with the managerial changes, poor acquisitions etc, these two have been at the forefront of the PLC for this whole sorry saga, and should be doing everything that they can to improve credibility. Non-appearance (for whatever reason) of crucial shareholder meetings clearly in my book isn't the right way of going about it.
I went to the AGM and thought at the time that Murray fronted a lot of it, and was effectively the 'face' of the board.
Not sure if it was a conscious decision by him - or others - but his honesty and willingness to accept that mistakes had been made in my view took a lot of the potential sting out of the criticism that could have been directed at them.
totally agree when things get smelly you want your generals up the front.Not heard from derek onhere for a long time have we.
Tbh, I didn't quite understand what he was on about before. PR doesn't seem to be his bag. Kudos for him sticking in another 500k but I'm with AFKA on this one.
an error is an error. They could have sent an apology .
I dont think thats quite right GH.
RM and BW couldnt vote (and presumably Hatter) but I think DC could and I am sure did by proxy.
From the accounts the Shareholdings are shown as:-
Murray 15,799.197
Whitehand 6,967,686
who couldnt vote.
The next largest shareholder is
Chappell 6,836,564
which I reckon rates to about the 30% of the shareholding that was available to vote.
On that basis I think he should have been the main player representing CAFC Plc at this meeting and he wasnt.
an error is an error. They could have sent an apology .[/quote]
There was no provision for 'Apologies' on the formal agenda, only the Resolutions.
The absence of the Chairman and his Deputy was mentioned in delegating Chair duties to RM and MS, but no explanation was offered.