At the same time as saying we might be jumping the gun and making things more difficult for the operation of the club, if they were more open and honest about what is really happening there may just be less speculation on web and in the press. As I see it the mail, as much as people may spit vitriol at them for not being the pc rag of choice, are doing us a service by telling us what the club should of been honest about a long time ago. How many scoops about the club in the nus journal or the new statesman? None, at least there are people at the mail who care enough to print stories on the club that would never otherwise exist if it was left to others. Whether you agree with their political background or not, there are those at the mail who care enough to show an interest rather than being full of which player city, utd or chelscum are looking to shell out 50m on next. Thanks Mick for ignoring the bile poured in your direction to bring us some news that may not be good, but at least is nearer the truth than we would otherwise hear.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]At the same time as saying we might be jumping the gun and making things more difficult for the operation of the club, if they were more open and honest about what is really happening there may just be less speculation on web and in the press. As I see it the mail, as much as people may spit vitriol at them for not being the pc rag of choice, are doing us a service by telling us what the club should of been honest about a long time ago. How many scoops about the club in the nus journal or the new statesman? None, at least there are people at the mail who care enough to print stories on the club that would never otherwise exist if it was left to others. Whether you agree with their political background or not, there are those at the mail who care enough to show an interest rather than being full of which player city, utd or chelscum are looking to shell out 50m on next. Thanks Mick for ignoring the bile poured in your direction to bring us some news that may not be good, but at least is nearer the truth than we would otherwise hear.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]None, at least there are people at the mail who care enough to print stories on the club that would never otherwise exist if it was left to others. Thanks Mick for ignoring the bile poured in your direction to bring us some news that may not be good, but at least is nearer the truth than we would otherwise hear.
What story...? What news....? What truth....? It was just a regurgitation of yesterday's old hat and last week's chip wrappings. Considering the delicate situation then club are in at present I'd like the author to come on here and tell us precisely what value to Charlton his musings could possibly have...
But would it be utter rubbish if someone was prepared to put their name to it? I would not put my name to some of my utter rubbish I drivel on here from time to time, ok all the time, but I am not a leading journo with a rep to think about. I would of agreed with you entirely if the story was inattributed or AP source or similar, but some sources tend to have More knowledge than others.
Exactly Zed, Mick piece is fine and dandy, but it contains a single unattributed quote, I don't mind that, but was the 'bid source' seconded by someone, was Murray, Chappell asked for a comment? Where the club given a right of reply by Mick?
If the quote didn't come from Varney, who did it come from? How close to the bid are they? Tea boy? Legal counse? Financial advisor? New chairman?
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]None, at least there are people at the mail who care enough to print stories on the club that would never otherwise exist if it was left to others. Thanks Mick for ignoring the bile poured in your direction to bring us some news that may not be good, but at least is nearer the truth than we would otherwise hear.
What story...? What news....? What truth....? It was just a regurgitation of yesterday's old hat and last week's chip wrappings. Considering the delicate situation then club are in at present I'd like the author to come on here and tell us precisely what value to Charlton his musings could possibly have...
I take it you have actually read the full article that Mick wrote and not just the abreviated version that it ended as?
The majority of clubs that fall from The Prem end up in financial problems if they are not promoted within 2 seasons, or taken over of course.
We are no different and the inequality between the revenues (ie Sky) is the main factor here, not simply bad management.
Richard Murray worked UNPAID for this club, for I estimate at least 10 years, before he took a £50K approx salary pa, because of some rule which said that he could no longer remain unpaid. Other Chairman pay themselves hundreds of thousands each year. He has also sank millions in to the club and he has now run out, even using up some of his pension fund to help CAFC by buying the training ground, which can not be developed and he inserted a clause, for the club to buy back at a reasonable price.
Chapple I believe was instrumental in trying to reduce the costs in the last couple of years, because he could see what might be coming. Chapple like Murray got involved with Charlton because they had some money and were persuaded to do so, as supporters, for the good of the club. Neither I believe took on the roles for the egos like the Mike Ashley's of this world.
We wouldn't of course be in this position if the team had been more successful and this is something that no board can entirely control - just look at Newcastle.
In summary I may have been taken in by Richard Murray over the last ten plus years, but I do not believe so. I believe that Murray and Chapple and hopefully the other board members still have the club at heart, but it is natural and understandable that they should want to get some of their many millions back if they can, I know I would.
In summary I think we should all wait a little longer for the outcome before we decide who are the heroes and villains.
As I tried explaining yesterday, mostly to a chorus of deaf eared muppets with agendas football as an economic activity is inherently unviable. For all Murray's (and Varney/Curbs etc) good work the financial goalposts keep being moved just out of our reach, he doesn't deserve any of this villification.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Once again this is only my opinion.
.......
But an accurate one, good post.
As I tried explaining yesterday, mostly to a chorus of deaf eared muppets with agendas football as an economic activity is inherently unviable. For all Murray's (and Varney/Curbs etc) good work the financial goalposts keep being moved just out of our reach, he doesn't deserve any of this villification.
You'll remember I was with you on that one yesterday, BFR.
As we know things are undoubtedly grim at the moment, although no one has said to what degree.
But one thing is for sure, since we won promotion and even since relegation from the Prem, the goalposts continually have moved as the equality between those with substantial Sky money and those without has changed and is still changing for the worse.
No doubt the club, both Board and management, have made ill-judged decisions and the price is being paid for it right now. But just to go scape-goat hunting armed with vindictive hindsight seems pointless to me.
And kudos to Covered End, for pointing out the human side behind the Board's decisions.
They are no less supporters than each one of us, they've previously put their money where their mouth is, and they won't get any satisfaction from where the club finds itself now.
I dont think Mick would do anything to harm the club or to cause this discontent (i dont know him ) but he is a charlton man at heart and none of us can question that.
I have not read the whole piece but just like i said the other week when the selling of the ground was mentioned that Administration and Graound selling should not be quoted or mentioned by those that i and other supporters look to due to their associtation and previous stirling participation on all things Charlton and i count Mick in that vein, Not because it may or may not happen but when things are purely speculative i do not see what it adds it only causes the issues that this has today
It divides fans
it creates concern and in the administration case it cause those connected to the club to chase payments that they may not have chased through the trust they had with the club
i just feel that the timing was off no matter how it was meant it has not helped
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]Weegie, Mick subsequently posted on here his original article, as it was before being edited by his sub.
So it is available to read in it's entireity but I can't remember exactly which thread.
I know, Oggy, it is on this thread. That may be what Mick intended to write, but it is not what appeared in the paper and online, and therefore not what Charlton's current creditors see.
I'm with Rothko (for a change!) on the damage it could do to an already fragile business -even if Mick didn't intend that in the least. Playing with fire and all that...
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]Weegie, Mick subsequently posted on here his original article, as it was before being edited by his sub.
So it is available to read in it's entireity but I can't remember exactly which thread.
I know, Oggy, it is on this thread. That may be what Mick intended to write, but it is not what appeared in the paper and online, and therefore not what Charlton's current creditors see.
I'm with Rothko (for a change!) on the damage it could do to an already fragile business -even if Mick didn't intend that in the least. Playing with fire and all that...
Suzi Sausage said in a previous thread that phone lines to the club Accounts office have been red hot today, with creditors anxious about payment, even though invoice terms are not due yet.
And all because of the bad publicity caused as a result of the drastically edited MoS article.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]Weegie, Mick subsequently posted on here his original article, as it was before being edited by his sub.
So it is available to read in it's entireity but I can't remember exactly which thread.
I know, Oggy, it is on this thread. That may be what Mick intended to write, but it is not what appeared in the paper and online, and therefore not what Charlton's current creditors see.
I'm with Rothko (for a change!) on the damage it could do to an already fragile business -even if Mick didn't intend that in the least. Playing with fire and all that...
Suzi Sausage said in a previous thread that phone lines to the club Accounts office have been red hot today, with creditors anxious about payment, even though invoice terms are not due yet.
And all because of the bad publicity caused as a result of the drastically edited MoS article.
Which proves that the buyers leaking this info is having the effect they want. Some fans are turning more strongly against the board and the creditors are now chasing. The pressure is increasing, which is exactly what they want !
Exactly, Covered End ..... but when you read Mick's full article posted earlier on this thread, it gives an entirely different meaning generally, compared to his sub-editor's drastically edited paragraph which appeared in the MoS.
At the end of the day (as Lennie Lawrence always used to say), it does seem that the 'source close to the bid' had every intent in driving the value of the club down.
The majority of clubs that fall from The Prem end up in financial problems if they are not promoted within 2 seasons, or taken over of course.
We are no different and the inequality between the revenues (ie Sky) is the main factor here, not simply bad management.
Richard Murray worked UNPAID for this club, for I estimate at least 10 years, before he took a £50K approx salary pa, because of some rule which said that he could no longer remain unpaid. Other Chairman pay themselves hundreds of thousands each year. He has also sank millions in to the club and he has now run out, even using up some of his pension fund to help CAFC by buying the training ground, which can not be developed and he inserted a clause, for the club to buy back at a reasonable price.
Chapple I believe was instrumental in trying to reduce the costs in the last couple of years, because he could see what might be coming. Chapple like Murray got involved with Charlton because they had some money and were persuaded to do so, as supporters, for the good of the club. Neither I believe took on the roles for the egos like the Mike Ashley's of this world.
We wouldn't of course be in this position if the team had been more successful and this is something that no board can entirely control - just look at Newcastle.
In summary I may have been taken in by Richard Murray over the last ten plus years, but I do not believe so. I believe that Murray and Chapple and hopefully the other board members still have the club at heart, but it is natural and understandable that they should want to get back some of their many millions back if they can, I know I would.
In summary I think we should all wait a little longer for the outcome before we decide who are the heroes and villains.
Once again this is only my opinion.
Well said that man! This is not about being an apologist for anyone. It just seems to be the simple truth. The present day economics of English professional football stink, and our board, our club, like others before and more to come have flown too close to the sun and got their wings burnt. Clubs like ours are not supposed to succeed and prosper. That is a privilege reserved for the permanent top 4 in the premiership.
The majority of clubs that fall from The Prem end up in financial problems if they are not promoted within 2 seasons, or taken over of course.
We are no different and the inequality between the revenues (ie Sky) is the main factor here, not simply bad management.
Richard Murray worked UNPAID for this club, for I estimate at least 10 years, before he took a £50K approx salary pa, because of some rule which said that he could no longer remain unpaid. Other Chairman pay themselves hundreds of thousands each year. He has also sank millions in to the club and he has now run out, even using up some of his pension fund to help CAFC by buying the training ground, which can not be developed and he inserted a clause, for the club to buy back at a reasonable price.
Chapple I believe was instrumental in trying to reduce the costs in the last couple of years, because he could see what might be coming. Chapple like Murray got involved with Charlton because they had some money and were persuaded to do so, as supporters, for the good of the club. Neither I believe took on the roles for the egos like the Mike Ashley's of this world.
We wouldn't of course be in this position if the team had been more successful and this is something that no board can entirely control - just look at Newcastle.
In summary I may have been taken in by Richard Murray over the last ten plus years, but I do not believe so. I believe that Murray and Chapple and hopefully the other board members still have the club at heart, but it is natural and understandable that they should want to get back some of their many millions back if they can, I know I would.
In summary I think we should all wait a little longer for the outcome before we decide who are the heroes and villains.
Once again this is only my opinion.
I also agree 100% with this post. The board don't deserve the level of vitriol that people have suddenly decided they now deserve. The incompetence that has caused our demise has been on the training ground not in the boardroom. Not even on the pitch. We had a squad easily good enough to not get relegated from the premiership and easily good enough to get promoted back in either of the last two seasons. Last season we had the third highest players’ salary in the Championship! Dowie and Pardew have both proved to be spectacularly inept as managers/coaches. But who could blame the board for appointing them at the times they were? They both had moderate success at previous clubs but clearly, as is often the case when players start in management, they got lucky. They inherited good playing squads and experienced backroom staff and were able to spend money on players of undoubted quality. Parky is there because there is no money left. Alas, he too has shown that his initial success at Colchester was more to do with luck than any innate talent as a coach/manager.
The board have made two decisions that have gone spectacularly wrong and one bad decision, the appointment of Reid, which they corrected pretty quickly. They have not been guilty of gross miss management or incompetence and don’t deserve this treatment. And, I don’t blame them for trying to reduce their personal losses as much as they possibly can.
I just hope, if there is a takeover, that the new board realise there is one fundamental decision they cannot afford to get wrong and that is the appointment of the next manager. If we are able to keep the current squad we should win this league easily. But only if we have a competent manager. The best way to reduce the risk of getting this wrong, in my opinion, is to appoint someone in their late fifties early sixties who has a track record of success with 3 or 4 different clubs/teams. And by success I simply mean someone who has never managed a team that has been relegated and consistently guides his teams to finish in the top half of whatever league they are in. I don’t know who that could be. He might even have been out of the game for the last 5 or 6 years.
Having said the above, I don’t blame Mick Collins for writing his article. He is a journalist, who is probably sympathetic towards the takeover consortium and the consortium have simply used him to get a story published that enhances their bargaining position.
Comments
That leaves about 10,000 potential posters/fans....:o)
keep up the good work
If the quote didn't come from Varney, who did it come from? How close to the bid are they? Tea boy? Legal counse? Financial advisor? New chairman?
I take it you have actually read the full article that Mick wrote and not just the abreviated version that it ended as?
In 1 day !!!
.... hope I m right.
The majority of clubs that fall from The Prem end up in financial problems if they are not promoted within 2 seasons, or taken over of course.
We are no different and the inequality between the revenues (ie Sky) is the main factor here, not simply bad management.
Richard Murray worked UNPAID for this club, for I estimate at least 10 years, before he took a £50K approx salary pa, because of some rule which said that he could no longer remain unpaid. Other Chairman pay themselves hundreds of thousands each year. He has also sank millions in to the club and he has now run out, even using up some of his pension fund to help CAFC by buying the training ground, which can not be developed and he inserted a clause, for the club to buy back at a reasonable price.
Chapple I believe was instrumental in trying to reduce the costs in the last couple of years, because he could see what might be coming. Chapple like Murray got involved with Charlton because they had some money and were persuaded to do so, as supporters, for the good of the club. Neither I believe took on the roles for the egos like the Mike Ashley's of this world.
We wouldn't of course be in this position if the team had been more successful and this is something that no board can entirely control - just look at Newcastle.
In summary I may have been taken in by Richard Murray over the last ten plus years, but I do not believe so. I believe that Murray and Chapple and hopefully the other board members still have the club at heart, but it is natural and understandable that they should want to get some of their many millions back if they can, I know I would.
In summary I think we should all wait a little longer for the outcome before we decide who are the heroes and villains.
Once again this is only my opinion.
.......
But an accurate one, good post.
As I tried explaining yesterday, mostly to a chorus of deaf eared muppets with agendas football as an economic activity is inherently unviable. For all Murray's (and Varney/Curbs etc) good work the financial goalposts keep being moved just out of our reach, he doesn't deserve any of this villification.
You'll remember I was with you on that one yesterday, BFR.
As we know things are undoubtedly grim at the moment, although no one has said to what degree.
But one thing is for sure, since we won promotion and even since relegation from the Prem, the goalposts continually have moved as the equality between those with substantial Sky money and those without has changed and is still changing for the worse.
No doubt the club, both Board and management, have made ill-judged decisions and the price is being paid for it right now. But just to go scape-goat hunting armed with vindictive hindsight seems pointless to me.
And kudos to Covered End, for pointing out the human side behind the Board's decisions.
They are no less supporters than each one of us, they've previously put their money where their mouth is, and they won't get any satisfaction from where the club finds itself now.
I have not read the whole piece but just like i said the other week when the selling of the ground was mentioned that Administration and Graound selling should not be quoted or mentioned by those that i and other supporters look to due to their associtation and previous stirling participation on all things Charlton and i count Mick in that vein, Not because it may or may not happen but when things are purely speculative i do not see what it adds it only causes the issues that this has today
It divides fans
it creates concern and in the administration case it cause those connected to the club to chase payments that they may not have chased through the trust they had with the club
i just feel that the timing was off no matter how it was meant it has not helped
From what I read yesterday. I thought the printed article was unattributed, and that it is only on here that Mick has "claimed responsibility"?
So it is available to read in it's entireity but I can't remember exactly which thread.
I know, Oggy, it is on this thread. That may be what Mick intended to write, but it is not what appeared in the paper and online, and therefore not what Charlton's current creditors see.
I'm with Rothko (for a change!) on the damage it could do to an already fragile business -even if Mick didn't intend that in the least. Playing with fire and all that...
Suzi Sausage said in a previous thread that phone lines to the club Accounts office have been red hot today, with creditors anxious about payment, even though invoice terms are not due yet.
And all because of the bad publicity caused as a result of the drastically edited MoS article.
Which proves that the buyers leaking this info is having the effect they want. Some fans are turning more strongly against the board and the creditors are now chasing. The pressure is increasing, which is exactly what they want !
At the end of the day (as Lennie Lawrence always used to say), it does seem that the 'source close to the bid' had every intent in driving the value of the club down.
Well said that man! This is not about being an apologist for anyone. It just seems to be the simple truth. The present day economics of English professional football stink, and our board, our club, like others before and more to come have flown too close to the sun and got their wings burnt. Clubs like ours are not supposed to succeed and prosper. That is a privilege reserved for the permanent top 4 in the premiership.
I also agree 100% with this post. The board don't deserve the level of vitriol that people have suddenly decided they now deserve. The incompetence that has caused our demise has been on the training ground not in the boardroom. Not even on the pitch. We had a squad easily good enough to not get relegated from the premiership and easily good enough to get promoted back in either of the last two seasons. Last season we had the third highest players’ salary in the Championship! Dowie and Pardew have both proved to be spectacularly inept as managers/coaches. But who could blame the board for appointing them at the times they were? They both had moderate success at previous clubs but clearly, as is often the case when players start in management, they got lucky. They inherited good playing squads and experienced backroom staff and were able to spend money on players of undoubted quality. Parky is there because there is no money left. Alas, he too has shown that his initial success at Colchester was more to do with luck than any innate talent as a coach/manager.
The board have made two decisions that have gone spectacularly wrong and one bad decision, the appointment of Reid, which they corrected pretty quickly. They have not been guilty of gross miss management or incompetence and don’t deserve this treatment. And, I don’t blame them for trying to reduce their personal losses as much as they possibly can.
I just hope, if there is a takeover, that the new board realise there is one fundamental decision they cannot afford to get wrong and that is the appointment of the next manager. If we are able to keep the current squad we should win this league easily. But only if we have a competent manager. The best way to reduce the risk of getting this wrong, in my opinion, is to appoint someone in their late fifties early sixties who has a track record of success with 3 or 4 different clubs/teams. And by success I simply mean someone who has never managed a team that has been relegated and consistently guides his teams to finish in the top half of whatever league they are in. I don’t know who that could be. He might even have been out of the game for the last 5 or 6 years.
Having said the above, I don’t blame Mick Collins for writing his article. He is a journalist, who is probably sympathetic towards the takeover consortium and the consortium have simply used him to get a story published that enhances their bargaining position.