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

Richard Murray Q+A last week - notes from the Chair

edited December 2009 in General Charlton
For those of you who were unable to attend last week's Q+A with Richard Murray and David White, here are some notes which I was able to take during the meeting.

Please recognise that these are a personal interpretation of what was said and that they are not meant to represent an official or complete record.

Hope they prove useful.

Comments

  • Brilliant, thanks.
  • thanks for that.
  • Great notes as well. Nice work
  • Thanks Dave....

    "Richard’s business principles and, after a few explanatory sentences, he told me, with a clear smile on his face, that “we do not go chasing”. Personally I found this quite illuminating from a business strategy perspective, but others may have a different view."

    You are likely to sell for more I guess if you are approached than if you do the approaching. Gold and Sullivan know well enough that Charlton is up for sale, if they are interested then let them make the first move, giving a buyer the impression that you are desperate is not a good stratey.
  • As one who was not there thank you Dave for this detailed summary.
  • Agree with the other responces, Many thanks, much appreciated.
  • Thanks for the summary Dave.
  • Many thanks Dave, after the A2 nightmares, the comprehensive account has helped to make up for the disappointment. Greatly appreciated.
  • P.S. I won't buy Delias book, but the catering dept might like to. Yellows served damm good food at good prices.
  • edited December 2009
    "A question about the top heavy Club hierarchy was posed ... how is it that we operate with a chief executive, deputy chief executive, managing director etc? Richard pre-empted the formal announcement about Nigel Capelin by an hour or so and agreed that numbers had not been right, but that Nigel had agreed to finish some things off before leaving the Club. Richard felt that we probably need “about one and a half people” in those roles, but provided some detail about the scope and intensity of Steve Waggott’s job (which, from a Fans’ Forum perspective, I would strongly endorse)."

    Dave,

    As you've given a personal view, I will give mine as a senior member of staff and which I know is widely shared by senior colleagues. The implication of that statement is that Steve Waggott is working hard and Steve Kavanagh less so. In reality, Steve Kavanagh is running the business and Steve Waggott's involvement in it is marginal and peripheral. He may very well be doing a great job on the football side - we wouldn't know. But if there is workload for one and a half people, rest assured Kavanagh is shouldering the majority of it - and that comes from the people who are involved every day of the week.

    Rick
  • Sponsored links:


  • I find it sad that a senior member of staff makes statements like this in public.

    Firstly Dave's notes did not say or IMHO imply that either Steve was doing more work than the other.

    Secondly it was only a few months ago that you said on here that as a managing director Steve Kavanagh made a good finance director.

    Whether any of what you say is true or not I don't know.

    What I can say is that using this forum in this way is, IMHO, incredibly unprofessional for a senior member of club staff.
  • cant believe the Dowie Saga isnt over yet!
  • It wouldnt be a "saga" if it was over!
  • almost more informative than the CAFC broadcast, at least I could see it and didnt have to lip read!!
    Excellent.......apart from the Dowie issues..
  • edited December 2009
    [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]I find it sad that a senior member of staff makes statements like this in public.

    Firstly Dave's notes did not say or IMHO imply that either Steve was doing more work than the other.

    Secondly it was only a few months ago that you said on here that as a managing director Steve Kavanagh made a good finance director.

    Whether any of what you say is true or not I don't know.

    What I can say is that using this forum in this way is, IMHO, incredibly unprofessional for a senior member of club staff.

    I suppose it depends on what you think matters most, Ben. I think it would be professional for the club to run a proper recruitment process for the post of chief executive. I think it would be professional for the board to set goals for the chief executive and measure his performance against them. I think it would be professional for the club to have a coherent internal management structure. I think it would be professional for the board to listen and act on constructive criticism made by senior staff in private. I think it would be professional for the club to hold staff consultation meetings outside of the redundancy process, having promised vehemently against considerable scepticism that this would be the case.

    Have any of these things happened, do you know?
  • Rick,

    I defer to your view, coming as it does from someone more involved and more aware than I am of the situations within the Club. The personal comment I made in my notes is simply an observation based on the direct interactions I have with Steve Waggott. To me, he seems to work an enormous number of hours, always seems receptive and has been helpful to the Fans' Forum (and, hence, to fans) on several fronts. Interestingly, I would say the same about Steve Kavanagh, with the proviso that I deal with him less often. I respect your view about the relative distribution of workload as I have no way of commenting on that.

    As far as using this board to express your views as an individual rather than as a Club employee, that's your call. If it provides a way to bring to the surface what may be a very important topic in terms of the Club hierarchy, then I salute you for making the rest of us aware. Others may question the wisdom of doing so, of course, and I choose not to add to that debate.
  • [cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]I find it sad that a senior member of staff makes statements like this in public.

    Firstly Dave's notes did not say or IMHO imply that either Steve was doing more work than the other.

    Secondly it was only a few months ago that you said on here that as a managing director Steve Kavanagh made a good finance director.

    Whether any of what you say is true or not I don't know.

    What I can say is that using this forum in this way is, IMHO, incredibly unprofessional for a senior member of club staff.

    I suppose it depends on what you think matters most, Ben. I think it would be professional for the club to run a proper recruitment process for the post of chief executive. I think it would be professional for the board to set goals for the chief executive and measure his performance against them. I think it would be professional for the club to have a coherent internal management structure. I think it would be professional for the board to listen and act on constructive criticism made by senior staff in private. I think it would be professional for the club to hold staff consultation meetings outside of the redundancy process, having promised vehemently against considerable scepticism that this would be the case.

    Have any of these things happened, do you know?

    Rick, I'm not sure Ben is necessarily disagreeing with any of your points or qualms, but the fact that you air them on here. If you believed that airing them on here would help them be resolved (by drawing attention to the matters thus putting pressure on the board or the senior figures involved, for example) then perhaps you (and others) could justify raising them here. So to respond properly to Ben's point I think you need to convince him that airing them on here is likely to help or improve things. Are you able to?

    I'm not suggesting that you can or you can't, just saying what I see. Personally, I think you're admirably brave for commenting as you do on this forum, but I'm not sure whether it is right or not. Depends what your reasons are for doing so.
  • Very interesting.

    Thanks Dave
  • Yes, thanks very much.

    Interesting that Richard Murray thinks our decline started in the Currbishley era.

    Depressing that he thinks the pemiership is out of reach and there does not seem to be a viable business model for clubs below that level.

    Where is it all leading to?
  • [quote][cite]Posted By: 24 Red[/cite]Yes, thanks very much.

    Interesting that Richard Murray thinks our decline started in the Currbishley era.

    Depressing that he thinks the pemiership is out of reach and there does not seem to be a viable business model for clubs below that level.

    Where is it all leading to?[/quote]

    I got the impression that he was saying out of our reach without new funding / investment
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: Kap10[/cite]I got the impression that he was saying out of our reach without new funding / investment

    Yes, that was my interpretation too.
  • Thanks very much - great informative notes and written in a nice, easy to read, style. I think that we will do well to get promoted this year and then extremely well to stay in the Championship without some extra investment. At present we are definitely a Championship side - even if we somehow managed to make it back to the premiership we would need a big chunk of investment to stand any chance of staying there and not just become premier league cannon fodder....
  • increase season ticket prices, and get a huge wad of Prem money when you go up, but I am assuming Murray meant getting promoted from the Champ was out of reach?
  • [cite]Posted By: Kap10[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: 24 Red[/cite]Yes, thanks very much.



    Depressing that he thinks the pemiership is out of reach and there does not seem to be a viable business model for clubs below that level.

    Where is it all leading to?

    I got the impression that he was saying out of our reach without new funding / investment


    I think a note of realism from Muzzer rather than despondency. We know that to get to the prem and stay there takes big money and a big squad and therefore we need fresh investment. And he's right that below prem level the business model is not viable unless you happen to have several good young kids coming through that you can train up and sell on.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!