Putting aside for a moment the effect on current employees, this surely has to be taken as a positive. A COO, CFO and CMO senior line up is pretty standard in a business and signifies that Prothero's review of the senior management structure has come to fruition. That is progress, and the club's willingness to invest in it's management (alongside the coaching and academy set up) indicates that a business plan is in place, even if not all the funding at this stage. The one strange thing. to my mind, is that normally the Board would appoint a CEO first, who would then appoint his/her senior team. It is hard to believe that prospective CEOs would be happy to take on a newly appointed senior team in which they had had no say. That suggests that these would report to an executive chairman (ie one that actually runs the club, taking on the role of a CEO as well as being chairman) or that the prospective CEO is already in place, by another name - ie Prothero.
Whether the existing senior management positions are redundant depends on the degree of similarity between the current roles and the new ones. If extremely similar, the existing job holders could expect to be appointed into the new roles and, if not, may have a claim for unfair dismissal - rather than redundancy. If the jobs are substantially different, the old jobs either stay reporting to the new more senior roles or become redundant - and those people occupying them are dismissed by reason of redundancy.
Consultation with the staff affected is a legal requirement as well as good management practice. I really hope that those affected have an opportunity to discuss the changes and to apply for new roles that are within their skills and experience.
However my understanding is that technically it is the JOB rather than the individual which is made redundant. At first sight they just seem to be ascribing a different title to Mick Everett's job.
If they were to remove him under that circumstance then legally I think they could be on a sticky wicket as the job hasn't really gone at all.
I was promoted to "Head Warehouse person" and the "Warehouse Manager" (who was useless) was made redundant.
I do exactly the same job. (A lot better)
Just rename, change the role ever so slightly or not at all and pretend you have.
However my understanding is that technically it is the JOB rather than the individual which is made redundant. At first sight they just seem to be ascribing a different title to Mick Everett's job.
If they were to remove him under that circumstance then legally I think they could be on a sticky wicket as the job hasn't really gone at all.
I was promoted to "Head Warehouse person" and the "Warehouse Manager" (who was useless) was made redundant.
I do exactly the same job. (A lot better)
Just rename, change the role ever so slightly or not at all and pretend you have.
Retitling should not be accepted as making a job redundant and if the incumbent chooses to then they could challenge it. However it is not that easy and employees do not always know how to go about it or cannot be arsed to go through the legal procedures. I had one guy who was obviously pushed out because the chairman wanted a relative in the role, he just could not be bothered to challenge it and found a new role fairly quickly.
At least they're filling in the roles that were left behind, I'd be very worried if Kavanagh, Varney and Airman had gone and no attempt was being made to replace them
Well there is certainly one person on here who could confirm and/or deny ME's position. Feel sorry for MW if true as well as on the face of it, him and his team have single-handedly maintained absolutely excellent communication levels with the fans across the web/social media etc.
There won't be a CEO and the three roles described will all be on the same level, reporting to Part-time Prothero. The salaries put forward are not dissimilar to the existing SMT posts (except Kavanagh) and will all be within the total cost of Kav plus me. Plus they are already paying one of them. It's cost cutting not investment, IMO.
Now, the structure may make sense in theory and change happens, but they have already taken too much knowledge out of the business and if - please note that word - you now take out the likes of Mick Everett they will be in big trouble, believe me.
Small example. Valley Express is now being run by a kid who has never been to a pick-up, never met the stewards and has no experience of the myriad issues that can affect the coaches. He's a bright kid, he'll work hard and I wish him well, but there will be problems and there is no one in the management structure who will be able to support him when they happen because they don't understand how it works either. Fortunately the stewards do, but they can't do the planning. It's not just about compiling lists of names.
The other dimension is that Mick, Matt and Dave Archer are Charlton fans at the heart (key word) of the club every day. They are also good at their jobs. Now it would be mad to say that everyone needs to be a Charlton fan to work there, but if we get to the point where there are no supporters in key positions you will see the difference. I have seen it in attitudes before.
Final thought - if you find any more senior employees up on gross misconduct charges over the next few weeks and months you'll maybe have reason to question the coincidence. I hope it doesn't happen and no one else loses their job; but I am not optimistic.
Small example. Valley Express is now being run by a kid who has never been to a pick-up, never met the stewards and has no experience of the myriad issues that can affect the coaches. He's a bright kid, he'll work hard and I wish him well, but there will be problems and there is no one in the management structure who will be able to support him when they happen because they don't understand how it works either. Fortunately the stewards do, but they can't do the planning. It's not just about compiling lists of names.
nor me. I can really see at least Valley Away folding, there is no financial value in the Club getting fans to away games and I doubt the service in itself makes much of a profit. Valley Express in itself folding would be madness but I could see some routes being cut back. Only time will tell.
It's perfectly possible to make a profit from Valley Away in the Championship. I'd expect a fares hike on both services, but maybe next season. If they try to make Valley Express break even it's unlikely to work on most routes, because you can't reduce your costs below one coach on each.
On the upside, maybe bringing in some new blood might not be a bad thing...fresh ideas etc.....we are in a recession and to be fair, the owners/management wouldnt be doing their jobs if they didnt look at viable cost cutting excercises. It's a tough thing to do (I've had to do it and it isnt pleasant), but sometimes necessary for the long term good of the company. Thats not to say I dont sympathise with any of the indivduals involved on the downside, but that's business, it shouldnt be personal. But I do understand for those involved that it becomes so from their point of view. I do however wish all involved the very best for the future.
Surely even if valley express doesn't break even they would lose more money getting rid of it because they would lose out on ticket sales
I'm still struggling to see where there is a negative in the new management structure. I'm just happy to see that they are doing something pro active for a change.
It may all work out and it is natural for a company to restructure every now and then. But then football clubs are not normal companies. From experience individuals who are personally and emotionally invested in a company (football clubs are a good example) go that extra distance to not only ensure a job is done but done well (often working many unpaid unseen extra hours). Mum worked in a nursing home for years and she said the minute they changed staff from long term permanent employees to outsourced agency the standards dipped dramatically. And of course its also the loss of hundreds of years of accumulated local knowledge, as a certain credit card advert says, that is priceless!
On the upside, maybe bringing in some new blood might not be a bad thing...fresh ideas etc.....we are in a recession and to be fair, the owners/management wouldnt be doing their jobs if they didnt look at viable cost cutting excercises. It's a tough thing to do (I've had to do it and it isnt pleasant), but sometimes necessary for the long term good of the company. Thats not to say I dont sympathise with any of the indivduals involved on the downside, but that's business, it shouldnt be personal. But I do understand for those involved that it becomes so from their point of view. I do however wish all involved the very best for the future.
Sorry Tel but I find this a pretty unconvincing defence of what seems to be going on, e.g. you write:
"bringing in some new blood might not be a bad thing...fresh ideas etc....."
That might hold water if the last twelve months showed that while we were successful on the pitch, off the pitch was a shambles. Do you have any reason to believe that was so? I can't find any. What I recall is frequent marketing exercises which resulted in a couple of sell -out 26,000+ crowds who were then got in and out as if it was an every day Premiership experience. There are few clubs of similar status across Europe who could manage that, let alone in England. Last season I took Valley Away to Yeovil and found it to be an impeccably run service in every respect. I get my tickets fine when I book up at the ticket office. Website booking is a grouse, but apart from that, as a customer I found CAFC to be a pretty damn good operation. Better than a lot of other UK services I use, that's for sure.
So where exactly is the need for "new blood" in commercial or operational aspects (other than that the new owners don't like the cut of a few gibs)? Do we need 'fresh ideas' ? I find the ideas we already have in that area to be pretty damn good, and executed with passion and competence. A pity I can't say that for the team building "closes season 'strategy'. Had that been done a bit better we might be well clear of the drop zone by now.
I also thoroughly agree with johnny73 above. We have a good behind the scenes operation with good ideas, but it worked because it was executed by people who care about it, people prepared to give 120%, go the extra mile. If you've run a business, you know that you do not casually toss away people who bring that kind of attitude to their work.
Prague. Are you saying Slater and Prothero have no experience in running a business?
Well neither have run a football club. When you run a business and are not familiar with its day to day requirements I thought it was good practice to surround yourself with experience that is. Have we got that last bit right ?
Prague. Are you saying Slater and Prothero have no experience in running a business?
Carly.
SHG has already replied pretty well to your question, but if I may amplify it.
My work nowadays is partially HR and talent building work. All the time I observe, discuss and learn from good and not so good decisions in this area, and all these decisions, good and bad, are made by businesses. Many businessmen would agree that building and managing teams is one of the most difficult aspects of running a business, especially a 'people business', which is what a football club is. Slater is a lawyer. In my experience they're not generally the best people managers.Their skill-sets are not oriented towards that area. Prothero ought to be good, but as Rick keeps pointing out, he's part time. That isn't conducive to good management positions.
Anyway, I didn't say what you said. I said what I said. That what they are doing does not seem to be based on performance last year. Do you have any reason to think that the performance off the field last year was bad, so bad that it required drastic surgery?
The point is Prague, you may not feel that the Club required drastic surgery, but obviously the new owners felt it was necessary.
I'm sure they've not done this on a whim. I'm sure they are well aware of the collective inside knowledge of those who have left along with their passions. I'm sure they're aware of the hubris it has caused amongst the fans. I'm sure they're aware that the way they've carried out the cull has been frowned on and is not 'The Charlton Way'.
But still they've done it. They're not stupid. They have their reasons. And it's not to devalue the Club - that's for sure.
TBH part time or not, it's the value one brings to the business that matters. Branson works 8 hours a week as he's got top managers reporting to him. That aside, the main concern for me is the loss of committed staff who may be less skilled but the Value of their passion for the job often outweigh the skill shortfalls if the competency is applicable. A mix of the two can boost efficiency if done correctly.
To me, the investment in first the academy and now the staffing shows a steely determination to have a lean and mean fighting machine that could take us back to the premiership once funds are put in the playing squad. They're putting all the ducks in line here.
For me a cold and efficient machine that keeps us in the Premiership is less desirable than a warm, fan-centred, frustrating in terms of efficiency team that keeps us yo-yoing between the divisions, creating despondency and exhilaration in us all - that'd do me!
Comments
COO replaces CEO Kavanagh and perhaps Mick Everett?
Marketing Manager replaces Club Development Manager Everitt and Officer Perfect?
Finance role filled inhouse
So doesn't sound like extra spending although that depends on wages then and now.
Without more info as to how the roles differ its hard to see what the pros and cons of the changes are.
Still seems odd that it has taken so long to fill "planned" for vacancies but will have to wait and see who signs up.
Whether the existing senior management positions are redundant depends on the degree of similarity between the current roles and the new ones. If extremely similar, the existing job holders could expect to be appointed into the new roles and, if not, may have a claim for unfair dismissal - rather than redundancy. If the jobs are substantially different, the old jobs either stay reporting to the new more senior roles or become redundant - and those people occupying them are dismissed by reason of redundancy.
Consultation with the staff affected is a legal requirement as well as good management practice. I really hope that those affected have an opportunity to discuss the changes and to apply for new roles that are within their skills and experience.
I was promoted to "Head Warehouse person" and the "Warehouse Manager" (who was useless) was made redundant.
I do exactly the same job. (A lot better)
Just rename, change the role ever so slightly or not at all and pretend you have.
I was promoted to "Head Warehouse person" and the "Warehouse Manager" (who was useless) was made redundant.
I do exactly the same job. (A lot better)
Bet you did the 'job' for less money
Now, the structure may make sense in theory and change happens, but they have already taken too much knowledge out of the business and if - please note that word - you now take out the likes of Mick Everett they will be in big trouble, believe me.
Small example. Valley Express is now being run by a kid who has never been to a pick-up, never met the stewards and has no experience of the myriad issues that can affect the coaches. He's a bright kid, he'll work hard and I wish him well, but there will be problems and there is no one in the management structure who will be able to support him when they happen because they don't understand how it works either. Fortunately the stewards do, but they can't do the planning. It's not just about compiling lists of names.
The other dimension is that Mick, Matt and Dave Archer are Charlton fans at the heart (key word) of the club every day. They are also good at their jobs. Now it would be mad to say that everyone needs to be a Charlton fan to work there, but if we get to the point where there are no supporters in key positions you will see the difference. I have seen it in attitudes before.
Final thought - if you find any more senior employees up on gross misconduct charges over the next few weeks and months you'll maybe have reason to question the coincidence. I hope it doesn't happen and no one else loses their job; but I am not optimistic.
Having said that he looked in top form last time I saw him.
Small example. Valley Express is now being run by a kid who has never been to a pick-up, never met the stewards and has no experience of the myriad issues that can affect the coaches. He's a bright kid, he'll work hard and I wish him well, but there will be problems and there is no one in the management structure who will be able to support him when they happen because they don't understand how it works either. Fortunately the stewards do, but they can't do the planning. It's not just about compiling lists of names.
Don't like the sound of this at all.
I'm still struggling to see where there is a negative in the new management structure. I'm just happy to see that they are doing something pro active for a change.
"bringing in some new blood might not be a bad thing...fresh ideas etc....."
That might hold water if the last twelve months showed that while we were successful on the pitch, off the pitch was a shambles. Do you have any reason to believe that was so? I can't find any. What I recall is frequent marketing exercises which resulted in a couple of sell -out 26,000+ crowds who were then got in and out as if it was an every day Premiership experience. There are few clubs of similar status across Europe who could manage that, let alone in England. Last season I took Valley Away to Yeovil and found it to be an impeccably run service in every respect. I get my tickets fine when I book up at the ticket office. Website booking is a grouse, but apart from that, as a customer I found CAFC to be a pretty damn good operation. Better than a lot of other UK services I use, that's for sure.
So where exactly is the need for "new blood" in commercial or operational aspects (other than that the new owners don't like the cut of a few gibs)? Do we need 'fresh ideas' ? I find the ideas we already have in that area to be pretty damn good, and executed with passion and competence. A pity I can't say that for the team building "closes season 'strategy'. Had that been done a bit better we might be well clear of the drop zone by now.
I also thoroughly agree with johnny73 above. We have a good behind the scenes operation with good ideas, but it worked because it was executed by people who care about it, people prepared to give 120%, go the extra mile. If you've run a business, you know that you do not casually toss away people who bring that kind of attitude to their work.
SHG has already replied pretty well to your question, but if I may amplify it.
My work nowadays is partially HR and talent building work. All the time I observe, discuss and learn from good and not so good decisions in this area, and all these decisions, good and bad, are made by businesses. Many businessmen would agree that building and managing teams is one of the most difficult aspects of running a business, especially a 'people business', which is what a football club is. Slater is a lawyer. In my experience they're not generally the best people managers.Their skill-sets are not oriented towards that area. Prothero ought to be good, but as Rick keeps pointing out, he's part time. That isn't conducive to good management positions.
Anyway, I didn't say what you said. I said what I said. That what they are doing does not seem to be based on performance last year. Do you have any reason to think that the performance off the field last year was bad, so bad that it required drastic surgery?
I'm sure they've not done this on a whim. I'm sure they are well aware of the collective inside knowledge of those who have left along with their passions. I'm sure they're aware of the hubris it has caused amongst the fans. I'm sure they're aware that the way they've carried out the cull has been frowned on and is not 'The Charlton Way'.
But still they've done it. They're not stupid. They have their reasons. And it's not to devalue the Club - that's for sure.
To me, the investment in first the academy and now the staffing shows a steely determination to have a lean and mean fighting machine that could take us back to the premiership once funds are put in the playing squad. They're putting all the ducks in line here.
For me a cold and efficient machine that keeps us in the Premiership is less desirable than a warm, fan-centred, frustrating in terms of efficiency team that keeps us yo-yoing between the divisions, creating despondency and exhilaration in us all - that'd do me!