Be fair, there's a quote from PT Prothero. That's a first in the four months he's been there, I believe. And on a Monday, too.
David Joyes is a good guy, but I'm intrigued to know how his new role is more senior to the one he already had. It can only be relative to Dave Archer, Mick Everett, Paul Ellison and Matt Wright, who have effectively been demoted. Nice.
There are people (in the know) contributing to this thread who's veiw's and opinions have my total respect but I have to agree with kafka and iaitch lets try to move on please.
I agree we should stay quiet and observe while we give the guy a decent chance. Just like we did with Lawrie Wilson - ahem.
However let's remember there's a benchmark of the previous incumbents. Unless things actually improve, it is reasonable to ask what the point was of getting rid of people who served the business well, especially as that has all ended in acrimony and lawsuits, which drains management time and resources. We need to see it was all for the greater good. You'll excuse me if I am sceptical - but I was sceptical about Lawrie Wilson after Palace.
Welcome the appointments, and await the opportunity to discuss matters when the people involved are a bit more settled into there roles. I will assume that the 'supporters forum' will be reconvened in the near future?
However let's remember there's a benchmark of the previous incumbents. Unless things actually improve, it is reasonable to ask what the point was of getting rid of people who served the business well, especially as that has all ended in acrimony and lawsuits, which drains management time and resources. We need to see it was all for the greater good. You'll excuse me if I am sceptical - but I was sceptical about Lawrie Wilson after Palace.
Also let's remember that the current owners don't give a flying **** what we supporters think, they just want us to support. They, we assume, are providing the resources for us to support our club, so let them provide and let us support and leave the past where it was, in the past, and move on.
However let's remember there's a benchmark of the previous incumbents. Unless things actually improve, it is reasonable to ask what the point was of getting rid of people who served the business well, especially as that has all ended in acrimony and lawsuits, which drains management time and resources. We need to see it was all for the greater good. You'll excuse me if I am sceptical - but I was sceptical about Lawrie Wilson after Palace.
Also let's remember that the current owners don't give a flying **** what we supporters think, they just want us to support. They, we assume, are providing the resources for us to support our club, so let them provide and let us support and leave the past where it was, in the past, and move on.
Benchmarking current performance against the past is not living in the past. It's part of the process of learning from past mistakes.
As for the implication that we should just mindlessly "support",whatever that means, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Anyone know what sort of a loss the club runs to each month?
An informed estimate (i.e not my own, but that of people who would be in a position to know) is that over the season the operating loss would be about £8m, depending mainly on how the final player wage bill stacks up. A similar figure would be at Palace, possibly worse because we should get slightly higher match-day revenue. That is why Zaha's departure is a barely concealed certainty next summer unless they go up (heaven forbid).
Benchmarking current performance against the past is not living in the past. It's part of the process of learning from past mistakes.
As for the implication that we should just mindlessly "support",whatever that means, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
learning from the past - so what, we now have owners who give us no input whatsoever so what ever you might learn cannot help support the club. mindless - no I didn't imply that and I take exception to your, by implication, holier than thou attitude towards my support for Charlton support - now I don't know about you but I'm a football supporter and that means I go to as many matches as I can afford and I shout and sing and show my colours for the team, that is what I mean by support. I just don't see that this continued raking over the dying embers of the past helps the current situation.
Benchmarking current performance against the past is not living in the past. It's part of the process of learning from past mistakes.
As for the implication that we should just mindlessly "support",whatever that means, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
learning from the past - so what, we now have owners who give us no input whatsoever so what ever you might learn cannot help support the club. mindless - no I didn't imply that and I take exception to your, by implication, holier than thou attitude towards my support for Charlton support - now I don't know about you but I'm a football supporter and that means I go to as many matches as I can afford and I shout and sing and show my colours for the team, that is what I mean by support. I just don't see that this continued raking over the dying embers of the past helps the current situation.
Well, we clearly aren't going to agree. The way wedefine support is different, that's ok; it's simply a difference of ambition. I want to see the day when at least 10% of the club is owned by the fans. In which case, those of us who share that ambition would be daft not to take a keen interest in what business it is that we seek to buy into.
As for "raking over dying embers" I thought - but maybe I am wrong - that you were one of those who recently identified yourself as working in HR. In which case you must have experienced that sometimes getting rid of managers and replacing them improves things, and sometimes it doesn't. And the way you measure that is with rational assessments of whether 'things' under their remit are better managed than before. That is what I'll be trying to understand. If you are not interested, that is OK. No one forces you to join the Trust, nor to discuss this kind of subject. But don't tell others not to discuss it when they do so for excellent reasons.
I'm not in HR, but this sounds amazing. Sometimes you change a management structure and sometimes it's not so good, is that it? Not sure I've grasped it all? Maybe Rodders could do a translation for mortals?
I guess this restructuring was why Prothero was brought in. They obviously feel its going to improve things so let's wait and see. Quite correct to assess whether it has improved things after a sensible length of time. Would be ludicrous not to.
I guess this restructuring was why Prothero was brought in. They obviously feel its going to improve things so let's wait and see. Quite correct to assess whether it has improved things after a sensible length of time. Would be ludicrous not to.
Whilst I agree with the principle, I'm not sure how this works in reality. How many of us know much about how the club is run? We can see what happens on the pitch easily enough but how much of this is as a result of a well run business structure? Who even defines 'good' or 'bad'? We hear rumours about what goes on behind closed doors but this is often by those who are speaking from their personal experience which may differ from others. In every workplace some people like a certain manger, some don't, it can be difficult to then be objective about their business skills and whole impact on the company. I suspect this change, like everything else that has happened to the club, will be used by those who are 'for' and those who are 'against' to advance their own arguments and little can be said to change the other sides views.
Fact of the matter is, the only unquestionable gauge of success at a club is success on the pitch and it was that eventual failure on the pitch that lead to our downfall - although there is no doubt that some good people have done some very good work in bringing in fans and raising community profile etc etc, all that became very insignificant compared to the very real fact that we were lying near the bottom of league 1 with less than a p[ot to piss in. A new broom has come in and we are now mid table championship and looking upwards. Kind of puts things into perspective as to who the most important people at the club are - the manager and the money man - everyvbody else is dispensible. Harsh but true.
"failure on the pitch that lead to our downfall " Devils advocate - can you be sure that it was not our failure behind the scenes that led to our failure on the pitch?
Comments
http://www.cafc.co.uk//news/article/20121203-bradshaw-joyes-523496.aspx?pageView=full
As minimalist as we have come to expect.
David Joyes is a good guy, but I'm intrigued to know how his new role is more senior to the one he already had. It can only be relative to Dave Archer, Mick Everett, Paul Ellison and Matt Wright, who have effectively been demoted. Nice.
Nothing wrong with a bit of:
However let's remember there's a benchmark of the previous incumbents. Unless things actually improve, it is reasonable to ask what the point was of getting rid of people who served the business well, especially as that has all ended in acrimony and lawsuits, which drains management time and resources. We need to see it was all for the greater good. You'll excuse me if I am sceptical - but I was sceptical about Lawrie Wilson after Palace.
I will assume that the 'supporters forum' will be reconvened in the near future?
As for the implication that we should just mindlessly "support",whatever that means, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Benchmarking current performance against the past is not living in the past. It's part of the process of learning from past mistakes.
As for the implication that we should just mindlessly "support",whatever that means, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
learning from the past - so what, we now have owners who give us no input whatsoever so what ever you might learn cannot help support the club.
mindless - no I didn't imply that and I take exception to your, by implication, holier than thou attitude towards my support for Charlton
support - now I don't know about you but I'm a football supporter and that means I go to as many matches as I can afford and I shout and sing and show my colours for the team, that is what I mean by support. I just don't see that this continued raking over the dying embers of the past helps the current situation.
As for the implication that we should just mindlessly "support",whatever that means, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
learning from the past - so what, we now have owners who give us no input whatsoever so what ever you might learn cannot help support the club.
mindless - no I didn't imply that and I take exception to your, by implication, holier than thou attitude towards my support for Charlton
support - now I don't know about you but I'm a football supporter and that means I go to as many matches as I can afford and I shout and sing and show my colours for the team, that is what I mean by support. I just don't see that this continued raking over the dying embers of the past helps the current situation.
Well, we clearly aren't going to agree. The way wedefine support is different, that's ok; it's simply a difference of ambition. I want to see the day when at least 10% of the club is owned by the fans. In which case, those of us who share that ambition would be daft not to take a keen interest in what business it is that we seek to buy into.
As for "raking over dying embers" I thought - but maybe I am wrong - that you were one of those who recently identified yourself as working in HR. In which case you must have experienced that sometimes getting rid of managers and replacing them improves things, and sometimes it doesn't. And the way you measure that is with rational assessments of whether 'things' under their remit are better managed than before. That is what I'll be trying to understand. If you are not interested, that is OK. No one forces you to join the Trust, nor to discuss this kind of subject. But don't tell others not to discuss it when they do so for excellent reasons.
We hear rumours about what goes on behind closed doors but this is often by those who are speaking from their personal experience which may differ from others. In every workplace some people like a certain manger, some don't, it can be difficult to then be objective about their business skills and whole impact on the company.
I suspect this change, like everything else that has happened to the club, will be used by those who are 'for' and those who are 'against' to advance their own arguments and little can be said to change the other sides views.
Devils advocate - can you be sure that it was not our failure behind the scenes that led to our failure on the pitch?