delete this thread its pointless now as we will be over the next few weeks. tit for tat posts getting silly and stil going on about the acv. pls put this thread out of its misery its painful reading now.
Oakster said: "from this side of the Atlantic I still think that the culture clash between English sport with all its traditions, supporter engagement & history & North American sports with its franchises & never ending name/stadium/badge/location changes is very pertinent & relevant - I wonder if Harris is acquainted with the Glazers who would have stories to tell about fan opposition & trusts."
Very perceptive post, Oakster, and not a million miles from what Jiminez wrote in the Huffington Post if you read between the lines:
"Having spent two decades working closely with a host of top clubs across the continent, I have seen first hand the subtle differences in how they are run, their histories and traditions - and all of those nuances can pose problems for new owners.
In setting up a new franchise rather than taking the reins of an existing club, at least Beckham won't be burdened with, or in danger of, breaching years of existing identity. That is a problem faced more and more by - particularly foreign - owners, as they become increasingly involved in the British game, where some of our oldest clubs have over 100 years of history.
Despite Beckham's influence on Major League Soccer over the last few years, there is still a gulf between 'soccer' Stateside, and 'football' on this side of the Atlantic."
Good to see Toby Porter make an appearance, but he's never going to reveal his sources. His angle, though, in my view very much intends to link the Trust/ACV with the failure of the Harris bid and it's still not entirely clear why. Maybe I'm tired, but I don't see who wins from that angle - it's not as if the ACV was challenged, after all.
Neither is it clear to me why all of a sudden it's Mr Porter with the scoops rather than Richard Cawley.
We'll all be pretty pissed off if we find out Mr Porter's been chatting with Reams, won't we... ;-)
Good to see Toby Porter make an appearance, but he's never going to reveal his sources. His angle, though, in my view very much intends to link the Trust/ACV with the failure of the Harris bid and it's still not entirely clear why. Maybe I'm tired, but I don't see who wins from that angle - it's not as if the ACV was challenged, after all.
Apparently only one poster accused the Trust/ACV of sinking the bid, and then deleted the post anyway. So a lot of huffing and puffing over nothing on that particular aspect - as on everything else , it seems.
Most have said all along that ACV could not have been the deal breaker. But that isn't to say that Harris didn't receive a report that any owner attempting to move to the Peninsula would face an oppositional camapaign by some supporters. In which case not wishing to face the bad publicity of protests and banner-waving fans may have been a contributory factor in a decision not to proceed.
We shall probably never know. In any case there would have been a section of the support that would mount a protest at a move away from The Valley with or without ACV and whatever position the Trust may take on the subject, so even if this was a factor in the American thinking, there is little point in 'blaming' anyone. On the other hand, it is disingenuous to deny that doubts about whether the fan base would be 100 per cent behind a move to a new ground could have been a factor, when there is no evidence either way.
Good to see Toby Porter make an appearance, but he's never going to reveal his sources. His angle, though, in my view very much intends to link the Trust/ACV with the failure of the Harris bid and it's still not entirely clear why. Maybe I'm tired, but I don't see who wins from that angle - it's not as if the ACV was challenged, after all.
Apparently only one poster accused the Trust/ACV of sinking the bid, and then deleted the post anyway. So a lot of huffing and puffing over nothing on that particular aspect - as on everything else , it seems.
Most have said all along that ACV could not have been the deal breaker. But that isn't to say that Harris didn't receive a report that any owner attempting to move to the Peninsula would face an oppositional camapaign by some supporters. In which case not wishing to face the bad publicity of protests and banner-waving fans may have been a contributory factor in a decision not to proceed.
We shall probably never know. In any case there would have been a section of the support that would mount a protest at a move away from The Valley with or without ACV and whatever position the Trust may take on the subject, so even if this was a factor in the American thinking, there is little point in 'blaming' anyone. On the other hand, it is disingenuous to deny that doubts about whether the fan base would be 100 per cent behind a move to a new ground could have been a factor, when there is no evidence either way.
That wasn't really my point. I'm saying, I hope clearly, that it was Toby Porter's intended angle to link the ACV with the failed takeover report, not just a column filler. The obvious question is why, and no doubt knowing who the source is would go some way to answering that.
I don't really understand why a businessman would worry about protests if he believed in his business plan. Did protests stop the Glazers achieving what they wanted? If there was a strong business case to leave The Valley most of us would sit up and listen and carefully consider it. If there isn't, we'd possibly be doing the owner a favour by protesting. The real issue here is one of engagement, a lack of which has been the biggest error our current board has made in my view.
They planted the story in part to bring in the views of the supporters so the contributors on here were all part of the due diligence process. The long and short of it is that after this review had been considered by the dd team, the price of the club was wrong. I am sure a deal was re attempted and the party pulled out. In a way Charlton Directors/ owners pulled out as they would not consider a lower price so they are to blame in the end not the Americans or the Trust.
With all due respect, rik, trying to double-guess our way inside the head of someone worth 2.5 billion dollars is so far removed from the humble payday loan planet must of us live on, there is no point in even trying to go there!
Who knows what factors may have been listed on the balance sheet that eventually produced a decision that the project was more trouble than it was worth?
My point remains: nobody can categorically deny that a calcualtion of 'fan trouble' may have been part of the equation any more than we can unequivically claim that it was. We don't know and we probably never will.
What did you make of Jiminez's comment in the HufPost about history and tradition in English football being a burden that "poses problems" for would-be foreign owners?
The ACV, as I stated earlier does not have to be interpreted as 'fan trouble'. If you have a sports team, you want and need supporters/paying customers. Using some resources to connect with fans is a good thing, and can make the club grow, as we have so ably demonstrated since the return to the Valley. Surely part of any consideration when buying a club is to have a strategy to engage with supporters and come to a mutual understanding, if not a total mutual agreement? The ACV, the Trust, the Community schemes, the positive nature of most of our support, make the club more, not less, attractive, especially as a lot of that stuff has not come about by throwing money at it, but by organic growth. If there are such schemes at so called big clubs then great, but I suspect they are managed top down. Ours are bottom up, plus collaboration with the parent club. Our supporter profile, whilst not as huge as a Manchester United, is richer and has a lot of potential.
With all due respect, rik, trying to double-guess our way inside the head of someone worth 2.5 billion dollars is so far removed from the humble payday loan planet must of us live on, there is no point in even trying to go there!
Who knows what factors may have been listed on the balance sheet that eventually produced a decision that the project was more trouble than it was worth?
My point remains: nobody can categorically deny that a calcualtion of 'fan trouble' may have been part of the equation any more than we can unequivically claim that it was. We don't know and we probably never will.
What did you make of Jiminez's comment in the HufPost about history and tradition in English football being a burden that "poses problems" for would-be foreign owners?
I agree, but then none of us should argue it strongly perhaps.
I thought the comments were interesting. I posted on another thread that I have a suspicion the presence of those posts are the product of a PR exercise, but I think he's got a point. I didn't read it as decrying our history and tradition though, simply that it was an additional obstacle to overcome for those less familiar with the importance of these things in our culture. That's right though isn't it, we don't operate a franchise model over here after all.
We should keep an eye on the Hull situation. That, and what's happened at Cardiff, Coventry and MK Dons suggests those governing our game are somewhat failing the English game.
Good to see Toby Porter make an appearance, but he's never going to reveal his sources. His angle, though, in my view very much intends to link the Trust/ACV with the failure of the Harris bid and it's still not entirely clear why. Maybe I'm tired, but I don't see who wins from that angle - it's not as if the ACV was challenged, after all.
Apparently only one poster accused the Trust/ACV of sinking the bid, and then deleted the post anyway. So a lot of huffing and puffing over nothing on that particular aspect - as on everything else , it seems.
Most have said all along that ACV could not have been the deal breaker. But that isn't to say that Harris didn't receive a report that any owner attempting to move to the Peninsula would face an oppositional camapaign by some supporters. In which case not wishing to face the bad publicity of protests and banner-waving fans may have been a contributory factor in a decision not to proceed.
We shall probably never know. In any case there would have been a section of the support that would mount a protest at a move away from The Valley with or without ACV and whatever position the Trust may take on the subject, so even if this was a factor in the American thinking, there is little point in 'blaming' anyone. On the other hand, it is disingenuous to deny that doubts about whether the fan base would be 100 per cent behind a move to a new ground could have been a factor, when there is no evidence either way.
That wasn't really my point. I'm saying, I hope clearly, that it was Toby Porter's intended angle to link the ACV with the failed takeover report, not just a column filler. The obvious question is why, and no doubt knowing who the source is would go some way to answering that.
I don't really understand why a businessman would worry about protests if he believed in his business plan. Did protests stop the Glazers achieving what they wanted? If there was a strong business case to leave The Valley most of us would sit up and listen and carefully consider it. If there isn't, we'd possibly be doing the owner a favour by protesting. The real issue here is one of engagement, a lack of which has been the biggest error our current board has made in my view.
Indeed Rik, and why would Toby not give me a buzz he has my number now after establishing contact, surely he would like some balance on a story like that? Anyone reading it can see there is a clear blame/linkage, he rang me for a story the following week. I felt it would be tit for tat if I responded then and by then damage was done
I accept that your coverage of games iprobably matches up to your claim. Would you concede that your linking of the alleged breakdown of talks to ACV was a mistake, and do you understand the distress it caused Barnie and The Trust who had in good faith tried to help you write your previous exclusive - in- print article on ACV being passed?
Respect to you for coming on here, either way
I have spoken to Barnie and explained the situation to him. I haven't seen any comments on me - I am a reporter, and report facts. If anyone wants to aim comments at me, that is fine, because it is their issue, not mine, as I know I do that job conscientiously and with care.
Barnie and the rest of the Trust were accused by people on here of being responsible for a bid apparently failing. That is a most unpleasant thing to read, regardless of who wrote it.
Link?
A few people like IA, Large and Oakster queried the timing, but I've not seen one post that has made any such accusations.
On the FORUM THAT CANNOT BE NAMED (to paraphrase Harry Potter)
Sorry, but I really don't want to get involved in a discussion about any of this. It will seem like a cop-out to some, but all that stuff is private - and yes, I know use of that word is heretical on a messageboard. I don't normally post on them if I can avoid it, but felt that, as a company, we were being unfairly attacked and to answer that point under a pseudonym would have been dishonorable.
Toby nobody, certainly not me anyway, expects you to reveal your sources and, as far as I can tell, nobody has asked for that and it is a red herring in my opinion.
The issue is the misrepresentation of ACV and the resulting implications drawn from the article.
That is why some are seeking an apology and preferably with the same prominence as the original article rather than a quarter of a column inch tucked away under the athletic support advert on page 17.
We also have to consider the word used "poised" we have had nothing since to confirm a withdrawal or otherwise. At this moment I am poised to do some work but it might not happen ;0)
Toby nobody, certainly not me anyway, expects you to reveal your sources and, as far as I can tell, nobody has asked for that and it is a red herring in my opinion.
The issue is the misrepresentation of ACV and the resulting implications drawn from the article.
That is why some are seeking an apology and preferably with the same prominence as the original article rather than a quarter of a column inch tucked away under the athletic support advert on page 17.
Give it a rest, Len. Porter is the sports editor and it's not his call to print an apology, even if one was due (which frankly it isn't; I think even razil accepted a printed apology was not appropriate?)
If you really are that exercised about it, then write to Hannah Walker and/or Peter Edwards, who as editor and MD are the only ones who can take a decision to print an apology and where it should be placed and with what prominence. Absolutely pointless repeatedly berating the sports ed in a public forum like this. It gets us nowhere. You clearly have a hive of bees in your bonnet about this so take your complaint where the power lies to adjudicate upon it.
Comments
Very perceptive post, Oakster, and not a million miles from what Jiminez wrote in the Huffington Post if you read between the lines:
"Having spent two decades working closely with a host of top clubs across the continent, I have seen first hand the subtle differences in how they are run, their histories and traditions - and all of those nuances can pose problems for new owners.
In setting up a new franchise rather than taking the reins of an existing club, at least Beckham won't be burdened with, or in danger of, breaching years of existing identity. That is a problem faced more and more by - particularly foreign - owners, as they become increasingly involved in the British game, where some of our oldest clubs have over 100 years of history.
Despite Beckham's influence on Major League Soccer over the last few years, there is still a gulf between 'soccer' Stateside, and 'football' on this side of the Atlantic."
Help......
http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/Sport.cfm?id=42675
Good to see Toby Porter make an appearance, but he's never going to reveal his sources. His angle, though, in my view very much intends to link the Trust/ACV with the failure of the Harris bid and it's still not entirely clear why. Maybe I'm tired, but I don't see who wins from that angle - it's not as if the ACV was challenged, after all.
Neither is it clear to me why all of a sudden it's Mr Porter with the scoops rather than Richard Cawley.
We'll all be pretty pissed off if we find out Mr Porter's been chatting with Reams, won't we... ;-)
Most have said all along that ACV could not have been the deal breaker. But that isn't to say that Harris didn't receive a report that any owner attempting to move to the Peninsula would face an oppositional camapaign by some supporters. In which case not wishing to face the bad publicity of protests and banner-waving fans may have been a contributory factor in a decision not to proceed.
We shall probably never know. In any case there would have been a section of the support that would mount a protest at a move away from The Valley with or without ACV and whatever position the Trust may take on the subject, so even if this was a factor in the American thinking, there is little point in 'blaming' anyone. On the other hand, it is disingenuous to deny that doubts about whether the fan base would be 100 per cent behind a move to a new ground could have been a factor, when there is no evidence either way.
I don't really understand why a businessman would worry about protests if he believed in his business plan. Did protests stop the Glazers achieving what they wanted? If there was a strong business case to leave The Valley most of us would sit up and listen and carefully consider it. If there isn't, we'd possibly be doing the owner a favour by protesting. The real issue here is one of engagement, a lack of which has been the biggest error our current board has made in my view.
Who knows what factors may have been listed on the balance sheet that eventually produced a decision that the project was more trouble than it was worth?
My point remains: nobody can categorically deny that a calcualtion of 'fan trouble' may have been part of the equation any more than we can unequivically claim that it was. We don't know and we probably never will.
What did you make of Jiminez's comment in the HufPost about history and tradition in English football being a burden that "poses problems" for would-be foreign owners?
If you have a sports team, you want and need supporters/paying customers.
Using some resources to connect with fans is a good thing, and can make the club grow, as we have so ably demonstrated since the return to the Valley.
Surely part of any consideration when buying a club is to have a strategy to engage with supporters and come to a mutual understanding, if not a total mutual agreement?
The ACV, the Trust, the Community schemes, the positive nature of most of our support, make the club more, not less, attractive, especially as a lot of that stuff has not come about by throwing money at it, but by organic growth.
If there are such schemes at so called big clubs then great, but I suspect they are managed top down. Ours are bottom up, plus collaboration with the parent club. Our supporter profile, whilst not as huge as a Manchester United, is richer and has a lot of potential.
I thought the comments were interesting. I posted on another thread that I have a suspicion the presence of those posts are the product of a PR exercise, but I think he's got a point. I didn't read it as decrying our history and tradition though, simply that it was an additional obstacle to overcome for those less familiar with the importance of these things in our culture. That's right though isn't it, we don't operate a franchise model over here after all.
We should keep an eye on the Hull situation. That, and what's happened at Cardiff, Coventry and MK Dons suggests those governing our game are somewhat failing the English game.
intothevalley.proboards.com/thread/14369/charlton-life-trust-club
The issue is the misrepresentation of ACV and the resulting implications drawn from the article.
That is why some are seeking an apology and preferably with the same prominence as the original article rather than a quarter of a column inch tucked away under the athletic support advert on page 17.
If you really are that exercised about it, then write to Hannah Walker and/or Peter Edwards, who as editor and MD are the only ones who can take a decision to print an apology and where it should be placed and with what prominence. Absolutely pointless repeatedly berating the sports ed in a public forum like this. It gets us nowhere. You clearly have a hive of bees in your bonnet about this so take your complaint where the power lies to adjudicate upon it.