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

Management checks and balances

I'm still trying to get my head round all that has happened. Modern football is clearly a very different animal to that which I grew up with. It's big business now with obscene money and management structures have to presumably be very different and adaptive. I understand that player managers should be allowed to get on with their jobs, but, post Curbs, that has clearly not worked for us. I started thinking after Harry Arter had told me that he had never met any of the board members. Is this the norm? When I think back, player de-motivation was evident over three years ago, so how come this situation was allowed to continue? Exactly how does our board get to know what is going on in the dressing room, academy and training ground? It seems to me that such information is vital but the board appears to rely on the words of the manager. No modern company does this, its generally recognised that the greatest asset is the workforce and there are various strategies in place to obtain feedback from its employees, if only to flag up problem areas and weaknesses. Are we outdated, out of touch, are there communication problems within the club? If so, is there anything we can do to try and improve things? Or is it just a matter of sitting tight now and seeing what happens?

Comments

  • I have never seen/spoken to the chap at the very top of my company but then there are a fair few of us. The head of our unit however choses to hardly speak to us. It has no baring at all on our performance. We all get on very well with the job in hand. Better, some might say.
  • [cite]Posted By: KBslittlesis[/cite]I have never seen/spoken to the chap at the very top of my company but then there are a fair few of us. The head of our unit however choses to hardly speak to us. It has no baring at all on our performance. We all get on very well with the job in hand. Better, some might say.

    Charlton are an employee with only a relatively small number of employees. Seems odd to me that a player albeit junior but at one point highly rated has never met a board member.
  • How many trainees are introduced to board members of their respective companies? I never have been.
  • As I spend a lot of time in "modern" companies I can say that there are plenty were the staff never speak to a director and at nearly all of them staff ask for better communication.

    I think the question to Arter or whoever would be "have you ever met Steve Waggott/Peter Varney or Mick Everitt or Steve Sutherland?"

    They are/were the operational directors. Most of the board are non-executive directors.
  • [cite]Posted By: Brunello[/cite]How many trainees are introduced to board members of their respective companies? I never have been.

    Not the same though is it ? Board members are supposed to be fans as well.
  • [cite]Posted By: Brunello[/cite]How many trainees are introduced to board members of their respective companies? I never have been.

    Apart from small owner managed businesses not many in my experience although a few do have a CEO or director do a spot in the company induction.
  • It depends I s'pose. I'm not surprised that youngster and trainees haven't seen the Head Honchos because there would be no reason for them to do so but it mostly depends on the way the club is run. Some clubs have very involved chairmen who do see the players, get involved in negotiations etc (and this isn't necessarily a good thing) while others leave it to their manager. I think trying to equate a drop in morale to a lack of chairman intervention is a bit of a red herring.
  • [cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Brunello[/cite]How many trainees are introduced to board members of their respective companies? I never have been.

    Not the same though is it ? Board members are supposed to be fans as well.

    They are so do they speak to players as directors or as fans. Should they ask for autographs and pictures?

    I do know that Richard Murray has spoken to players individually and as a group on occasions. Maybe Harry Arter should take more of an interest in the club outside of the bubble many pro players live in where only them and the other players matter.
  • Sorry, haven't explained myself very well, I was more interested in how the board gets its information. If there is discontent amongst the players, how does the board get to hear about it?
  • They get their info thru Charlton Life just like everyone else : - )
  • Sponsored links:


  • [quote][cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Sorry, haven't explained myself very well, I was more interested in how the board gets its information. If there is discontent amongst the players, how does the board get to hear about it?[/quote]

    Martin Christensen. It's the only explanation for why we signed him on such a silly deal.
  • I think at cafc the players in the past would have met RM but not PV as he didn't deal with players in that way. SW knows the players as he has that added responsibility and spends time at the TG. Other directors (exec or non exec) would prob only meet players at golf days or on other rare occasions.

    PV told me he once was shopping and walked past Ambrose and family, was going to say hello, then realised he wouldn't have known him and he didn't want to explain so left it.
  • On last seasons performance most players didnt seem to know the who they where playing with let alone directors or back room staff.....
  • LOL I can just see Peter saying

    "Don't you know who I am?"
  • [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]LOL I can just see Peter saying

    "Don't you know who I am?"

    The man buying the club? ;-0)
  • Ok, i'll accept we haven't had the best of examples in the last couple of years, but i don't see the need for any players to have involvement with board members. If anything, i would see it as unhealthy and likely to lead to internal problems.

    All good management involves putting trust, faith and the right responsibilities in the staff underneath you. And that involves leaving people to do the jobs relevent to their skillsets. I don't want chairman and board members interferring in football affairs. Let them get on with their jobs and either back them or sack them.
  • [quote][cite]
    PV told me he once was shopping and walked past Ambrose and family, was going to say hello, then realised he wouldn't have known him and he didn't want to explain so left it.[/quote]

    PV shouldn't feel rude, plenty of opposition players walked past Ambrose in the last 4 years and didn't say hello either....
  • Some of you seem to be confusing two things. There's a big difference between having an active/meddling involvement and showing the enthusiasm to meet the players. In the case of someone like Arter the lack of interest from above may well be de-motivating and signal a lack of future at the club - particularly if others in his peer group or younger are getting attention. Some people really need that kind of re-assurance, others really see it as pointless. You have to take individual cases and work out what is best in the circumstances.

    I spoke to a very prominent member of the staff who is awaiting key talks with the club that have a huge bearing on his future (and would be of great interest to most supporters) and he'd had no contact with directors either. It's not strictly significant, but it doesn't sound like the kind of thing any management text would be advocating.
  • According to Curbs in his book he and Richard Murray signed a player and Richard told the player that could be the last he sees of him. The player thought RM was joking but Curbs knew he wasn't.

    As Curbs put it RM left him to do the job he was paid to do and, although some fans didn't like it, that strategy worked as Curbs did his job very well.

    RM has probably had to become more "hands on" because of the incompetents appointed subsequently.
  • edited July 2009
    [cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]Ok, i'll accept we haven't had the best of examples in the last couple of years, but i don't see the need for any players to have involvement with board members. If anything, i would see it as unhealthy and likely to lead to internal problems.

    All good management involves putting trust, faith and the right responsibilities in the staff underneath you. And that involves leaving people to do the jobs relevent to their skillsets. I don't want chairman and board members interferring in football affairs. Let them get on with their jobs and either back them or sack them.
    So what we're saying is that boardroom activity/unrest etc is not an excuse for poor performances on the pitch, that the players should just get on with what they're paid to do (as Henry so perfectly puts it, most of them live in a bubble anyway so there's no reason for them to be affected by outside influences...unless it suits them!).

    Works for me, it's what I've always thought.

    Interesting the comparisons that are being made here between football and general business. We're always hearing how unique football is and how it can't be compared but on this one Ii think the comparisons are fair, that football (and players in particular) could - and should - learn something from business...

    IE GET ON WITH WHAT YOU'RE PAID TO DO AND STOP MAKING EXCUSES!!
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited July 2009
    im sure the directors etc had a jolly up day a few years back with the first team. They all had to shower together... no one wanted to shower standing next to jay boothroyd...

    (i think this will get pulled quite quickly).
  • [cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]i

    "i think this will get pulled quite quickly".

    Is that what David White said to Boothroyd?
  • [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]As I spend a lot of time in "modern" companies I can say that there are plenty were the staff never speak to a director and at nearly all of them staff ask for better communication.

    I think the question to Arter or whoever would be "have you ever met Steve Waggott/Peter Varney or Mick Everitt or Steve Sutherland?"

    They are/were the operational directors. Most of the board are non-executive directors.

    I think you are at risk of spreading confusion with that post. Mick Everett, Steve Sutherland and I have all been described by the club as directors in the past, but none of us were ever board members or directors in the legal sense. Indeed, the word "director" was simply used to differentiate these posts from those of "managers".

    Steve Kavanagh is managing director, but he is a not a member of the board (to my knowledge). Steve Waggott is a member of the FC board, as is Nigel Capelin. All three are likely to attend board meetings.

    I wouldn't favour board members getting too involved with the playing side and that has never been an issue to my knowledge, but the gap between members of the plc board and senior is unhealthy. Board members have very little involvement the day-to-day running of the business and I would suggest most of them did not join the board to get involved in it.

    The majority of staff at The Valley would never have met any or spoken to any board directors, other than in some cases Waggott and Capelin, and probably Martin Simons, because other than matchdays they are very rarely on site.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!