I keep reading about the pitch. Roland knew about this when he took over, and being the smart businessman that he is, it was surely taken into account when a price was negotiated? If you buy a house and the survey shows a new roof is needed you negotiate a reduction don't you? So no cigar from me for this, and Sparrows Lane is still exactly the same, whatever anyone says.
"“Of course I can understand their frustration and they have every right to be [frustrated],” she said. “But I hope they understand the owner wants the best for Charlton. He does it his way and they need to accept that.
Thing is the the fans don't have to accept it. They can stop coming to games, stop buying season tickets. They have a choice.
“They will not always agree with our decisions. No fans in the world will always agree with the decisions of the board. I always try to take into account the fans, but sometimes you have to make hard decisions."
Very valid points, you can't please all the people all the time. But I'll say it again more people might agree if you and Roland took more time to explain the decisions and how they fit into the bigger plan, whatever that is.
On another note I do laugh when people who defended Jimenez and Slater to the hilt and refused to accept that they could in any way be challenged, criticised or blamed "because they own the club and saved us from administration" now trot out the same line to defend Roland without a hint of irony.
Don't be forgetting about the 100% Support Henry 'look at me' Irving. ;-)
I know you struggle with reading and understanding so I'll explain it it simple words for you.
100% support for Luzon. 100% support for the man, not the recruitment process.
"Fans" don't have to accept it. That is "fans" in general not this fan in particular.
I realise that you were upset that I made a joke on your precious "thanks Bob" thread and you are struggling to get over that but you really need to move on.
Well AB of course you may have the correct insight but frankly how can you be so certain?
RD may just have lucked out, this time. The underlying structure and project may be flawed but so much of it is down to variables that I don't think I could look at what is being attempted and be as certain as you.
The various boards and management's at the Valley have made plenty of poor decisions.
I wouldn't have done a deal with New England to see our best striker loaned there with 10 games to go. The decision was made to align with them to try to generate some cash.
I would never have appointed Lennie in a million years. The club just lucked out at the time because he was kind of the last man standing.
I would never of gone for "joint coaches/managers"
I fancied Gritty over Curbs
I thought that Dowie was a good appointment and the Pardont was a poor one.
I disliked Parky, but I welcomed CP.
I would never have sold Andy Reid. I would never have signed Andy Jones.
These were all either decisions made out of necessity or because somebody had a plan.
What is clear is that over the years that I have supported our club, there has rarely if ever been a time when the club had the finances it needed or the playing resources I would have liked it to have in an ideal world. Even through the last premier league excursion, the club had no real plan for the post Curbs era. They missed out on Billy Davis and made the disastrous decision to appoint Dowie. The rest is history.
How do we know that this new bloke won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear in the same way that for example Lennie, Curbs (and Gritty) did? Neither of these regimes started with any money, very thin squads and club in crisis.
My point is that whilst the structure and the resources may itself be flawed, it takes more than that to guarantee failure or scupper success.
That is all very interesting (genuinely) and got me thinking about the same decisions and whether I would have made them or not.
However, the issue is that the club could have easily come out and said that Bob was gone and they had a candidate in mind and they would let us know as soon as they have any news. They could even have named him - although I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to.
The issue is that they gave the impression that they were going to 'search' for a replacement, opposed to appoint the chap they's already decided on.
I can see the financial benefits (in terms of negotiating with Luzon) of giving the impression that they had other options but it isn't the appointment that bothers most people - he might be a great manager for us. It is the fact that we were lied to, and when it was totally unnecessary to do so.
If you want a comparison, it's like your wife stopping off for a coffee on her way home from the shops and lying about it. Now if she was shagging your brother then fair enough, she has to lie, really, but once KM lied about something that we couldn't care less about - and were going to have happen anyway, she made herself look untrustworthy.
What is sad is that she is attractive and nice (popular with colleagues). She was born with her looks and she is, probably, naturally a pleasant person - neither of which are, in actual fact, necessary to run a business. The thing that is necessary is that one has the trust of colleagues, subordinates and 'customers'. She had that trust in my eyes, and, I suspect, many others. Now she has lost it and it will take a long time for her to get it back - if she ever does.
I don't really get why you need to make a point about her looks, when as you say, it has nothing to do with running a business, & when Bing didn't make any reference to them. Sorry if I've missed your intended point, I'm on some pretty strong (prescribed - honest!) medication at the moment.
I do agree that it will be hard to trust a word she says in the future though, but she has been put in that position by Roland, so it's not completely her fault.
If Alan Hansen were in a business environment, he might say; 'That's naive directing'. (Boom boom! Cue Tumbleweed)
I was trying to make the point, without writing so much that people stop reading before I'd finished, that due to the way she looks and how charming she is in front of a camera or an audience, she was given the benefit of doubt. She was 'welcomed' to the club and people warmed to her. I don't remember seeing anything unpleasant said about here on here before this week.
Then she is responsible for what can, credibly, be called lies, that were unnecessary, and now she has turned into a pretty face that, it could be argued, is only there to lie to the fans on behalf of the Chairman.
Even those that claim that she was 'hung out to dry' must be able to see that telling us on Monday that the starch has started then telling us two days later that the decision had already been made on the Sunday night makes her look implicit in the whole affair.
It's a bit dangerous to accuse the lady of telling lies on here. She is a lawyer and could take legal action against posters.
Good luck with that one. You really think she wants the truth of what she's said tested in court, because that would be the issue on which the case would turn?
Well AB of course you may have the correct insight but frankly how can you be so certain?
RD may just have lucked out, this time. The underlying structure and project may be flawed but so much of it is down to variables that I don't think I could look at what is being attempted and be as certain as you.
The various boards and management's at the Valley have made plenty of poor decisions.
I wouldn't have done a deal with New England to see our best striker loaned there with 10 games to go. The decision was made to align with them to try to generate some cash.
I would never have appointed Lennie in a million years. The club just lucked out at the time because he was kind of the last man standing.
I would never of gone for "joint coaches/managers"
I fancied Gritty over Curbs
I thought that Dowie was a good appointment and the Pardont was a poor one.
I disliked Parky, but I welcomed CP.
I would never have sold Andy Reid. I would never have signed Andy Jones.
These were all either decisions made out of necessity or because somebody had a plan.
What is clear is that over the years that I have supported our club, there has rarely if ever been a time when the club had the finances it needed or the playing resources I would have liked it to have in an ideal world. Even through the last premier league excursion, the club had no real plan for the post Curbs era. They missed out on Billy Davis and made the disastrous decision to appoint Dowie. The rest is history.
How do we know that this new bloke won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear in the same way that for example Lennie, Curbs (and Gritty) did? Neither of these regimes started with any money, very thin squads and club in crisis.
My point is that whilst the structure and the resources may itself be flawed, it takes more than that to guarantee failure or scupper success.
That is all very interesting (genuinely) and got me thinking about the same decisions and whether I would have made them or not.
However, the issue is that the club could have easily come out and said that Bob was gone and they had a candidate in mind and they would let us know as soon as they have any news. They could even have named him - although I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to.
The issue is that they gave the impression that they were going to 'search' for a replacement, opposed to appoint the chap they's already decided on.
I can see the financial benefits (in terms of negotiating with Luzon) of giving the impression that they had other options but it isn't the appointment that bothers most people - he might be a great manager for us. It is the fact that we were lied to, and when it was totally unnecessary to do so.
If you want a comparison, it's like your wife stopping off for a coffee on her way home from the shops and lying about it. Now if she was shagging your brother then fair enough, she has to lie, really, but once KM lied about something that we couldn't care less about - and were going to have happen anyway, she made herself look untrustworthy.
What is sad is that she is attractive and nice (popular with colleagues). She was born with her looks and she is, probably, naturally a pleasant person - neither of which are, in actual fact, necessary to run a business. The thing that is necessary is that one has the trust of colleagues, subordinates and 'customers'. She had that trust in my eyes, and, I suspect, many others. Now she has lost it and it will take a long time for her to get it back - if she ever does.
I don't really get why you need to make a point about her looks, when as you say, it has nothing to do with running a business, & when Bing didn't make any reference to them. Sorry if I've missed your intended point, I'm on some pretty strong (prescribed - honest!) medication at the moment.
I do agree that it will be hard to trust a word she says in the future though, but she has been put in that position by Roland, so it's not completely her fault.
If Alan Hansen were in a business environment, he might say; 'That's naive directing'. (Boom boom! Cue Tumbleweed)
I was trying to make the point, without writing so much that people stop reading before I'd finished, that due to the way she looks and how charming she is in front of a camera or an audience, she was given the benefit of doubt. She was 'welcomed' to the club and people warmed to her. I don't remember seeing anything unpleasant said about here on here before this week.
Then she is responsible for what can, credibly, be called lies, that were unnecessary, and now she has turned into a pretty face that, it could be argued, is only there to lie to the fans on behalf of the Chairman.
Even those that claim that she was 'hung out to dry' must be able to see that telling us on Monday that the starch has started then telling us two days later that the decision had already been made on the Sunday night makes her look implicit in the whole affair.
You saying she is ironing Rolands shirts too, KHA? Explains a lot!!!
We are being asked to trust in what they're doing. Yes, and put up or shut up. That's about it.
What worries me about this interview is that there are no lessons learnt from this weeks mistakes. KM is coming over all parental / school teacherish ... "If it was not for your parents (Roland and Katrien) you would not have a roof over your head!". Thye need to offer an olive barnch, some hope, because if fans like me are feeling betrayed then they have massive and probably irreparable problems.
There is a stink at the Valley and it will take years of positivity for it to go away.
Tough titty says the top totty. Can this possibly be the same woman that so many were drooling over? Makes me chuckle in a way, this woman is above all a seasoned businesswoman, but in the usual sexist way quite a few supporters were distracted by the twin peaks. They'll not make that mistake again :-)
For clarification, when I suggested that KM 'is responsible for what can, credibly, be called lies' I was suggesting that even if she was telling the truth, as soon as people believe she has lied the outcome is the same as if she had.
Hence the use of the word 'credibly'.
Having said that it is my belief that the sequence of events does, indeed, suggest that we have not been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Totally not impressed by Katrien Miere's statement in the Evening Standard. Why should Charlton supporters accept the way that Roland is running the club, if the way the club is being run is being done on flawed and incorrect assumptions ? Why should Charlton supporters be patient when Roland is making a succession of poor decisions ?
Roland has continually completely underestimated what is required for a competitive championship squad. Charlton supporters need to be patient for what reason ? What little of Roland's strategy that we see appears to be totally inadequate. Miere talks about investment but fails to mention the totally wafer thin squad. Even the pitch was funded by the sale of Kermogant. The No 9 shirt that has never been filled.
Miere is talking to Charlton supporters as though they are naughty school children who have the temerity to express an opinion. There really are some ill judged comments here. A Chief Executive on paper only. KM is just an uncritical mouthpiece for Roland. I had time for Katrien Miere but for me she has lost all credibility.
It does strike me as rather amusing that for all the hair pulling (amongst those few of us with any left to pull!) about how they handled the PR badly there have been rather a lot of interestingly specific leaks as to EXACTLY what Bob did wrong and precisely how he managed to lose the squad just recently. I don't think there has been any direct instructions from anybody but Bob's clearly being painted as a wrong un who had to go (maybe true, I don't know and don't know anyone who I trust does) and thus it was a perfectly appropriate and timely decision.
Still doesn't explain how Luzon got the job so quickly/easily though which is the bit I think truly sticks in many craws...
Tough titty says the top totty. Can this possibly be the same woman that so many were drooling over? Makes me chuckle in a way, this woman is above all a seasoned businesswoman, but in the usual sexist way quite a few supporters were distracted by the twin peaks. They'll not make that mistake again :-)
Yes they will, if we have a reasonable second half of the season. Us supporters are a captive, forgiving market and as such have very short memories. I wouldn't call us customers as that sort of implies we buy something and have a choice, we dont. No man changes the club he supports. We will like it and lump it.
What I find hard to believe is people actually think owners of business would be transparent with their dealings. Being told half truths and kept in the dark on decisions isn't unusual.
IMO, the last lot did more damage to Charlton than this lot. At least now we have warm cider in the east stand.
She could have looked at the moaning on here, delayed naming Luzon until Thursday or Friday,claimed she had interviewed 20 candidates - would that have placated the moaners?
No because Sky Sports were all over Luzon going to the club for talks. If another 19 were not seen going in or out then it would be obvious it's another lie.
Why would the Valley be the only place on earth that interviews would take place. In fact, some people would probably prefer to be interviewed away from the glare of publicity.
So up to 20 people would choose not to be interviewed at the valley you think? John, wake up, stop kidding yourself.
Thanks West country - yes I'm wide awake are you? My comment about the 20 candidates was in a reply to a question which I will ask you. She (K.M) could have looked at the moaning on here, delayed naming Luzon until Thursday or Friday,claimed she had interviewed 20 candidates - would that have placated the moaners? Also who was on your list of suitable candidates? Of course I doubt that anyone other than Guy Luzon (if he was) was interviewed or the job. We were at best probably the victims of poor P.R. and spin, at worst lied to. But In my 60 years plus of supporting Charlton we've been the victim of lies and spin at some time, by all the various Valley regimes. That comes with being a football supporter.
Does what she said matter really, its a private company and whatever we say or want doesn't count for a hill of beans, she wasn't under oath and there was no need to tell us anything. So we now know not to believe everything the board of our football company tells us, what a shock!.
We may have been spoilt with our relations with previous boards, with greater fan representatives and consultation, but they did that because they needed our MONEY, this lot don't and have no need to involve or consult us. If we don't like it we have a choice AS CUSTOMERS to do one.
If anyone can trully say they were happy with how we were playing recently under Bob I would be suprised, we may not like how it was done but it was probably as right a decision as those on SCP, Reed or Parkinson.
Hopefully the decision to replace Bob, will in time prove correct, if it doesn't then we can criticize, complain, refuse to attend etc, but I don't expect his replacements recruitment process to be any different. I would also expect looking at the comments she made recently that in future we won't hear ANYTHING substantial from Katrin.
Does what she said matter really, its a private company and whatever we say or want doesn't count for a hill of beans, she wasn't under oath and there was no need to tell us anything. So we now know not to believe everything the board of our football company tells us, what a shock!.
We may have been spoilt with our relations with previous boards, with greater fan representatives and consultation, but they did that because they needed our MONEY, this lot don't and have no need to involve or consult us. If we don't like it we have a choice AS CUSTOMERS to do one.
If anyone can trully say they were happy with how we were playing recently under Bob I would be suprised, we may not like how it was done but it was probably as right a decision as those on SCP, Reed or Parkinson.
Hopefully the decision to replace Bob, will in time prove correct, if it doesn't then we can criticize, complain, refuse to attend etc, but I don't expect his replacements recruitment process to be any different. I would also expect looking at the comments she made recently that in future we won't hear ANYTHING substantial from Katrin.
RD will lose money every season the club is in the Championship. Gate income accounts for a significant proportion of a Championship club's revenue.
More to the point, he's either here to make money or he's here to see if his theory can work, which will only be proved by, er, making money. He can't do it without the fans. This, for me, is his primary fundamental misconception - not his only one either.
Theres a difference in needing our money as spectators, and having to raise large amounts of funds from individuals for infrastructual purposes like when we had the fan on the board. Im sure Roland would love a full ground, but he doesnt need us to organize a whip round to pay for a new pitch, and therefore doesnt need fan representation, or structured consultation at board level.
Everyone lies, except me! All im saying is we're niave if we really expect the truth to be told in these matters. She told a whopper and was caught out, next time she'll say nowt, its not worth getting too bothered about it, we'll know in future to take whats said with a pinch of salt.
Comments
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/charlton-chief-executive-katrien-meire-fans-must-accept-how-we-run-club-9981096.html
100% support for Luzon. 100% support for the man, not the recruitment process.
"Fans" don't have to accept it. That is "fans" in general not this fan in particular.
I realise that you were upset that I made a joke on your precious "thanks Bob" thread and you are struggling to get over that but you really need to move on.
: - )
Then she is responsible for what can, credibly, be called lies, that were unnecessary, and now she has turned into a pretty face that, it could be argued, is only there to lie to the fans on behalf of the Chairman.
Even those that claim that she was 'hung out to dry' must be able to see that telling us on Monday that the starch has started then telling us two days later that the decision had already been made on the Sunday night makes her look implicit in the whole affair.
I would accept it if it was true... lol
- sorry to add humour to this serious subject!!
There is a stink at the Valley and it will take years of positivity for it to go away.
Hence the use of the word 'credibly'.
Having said that it is my belief that the sequence of events does, indeed, suggest that we have not been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Roland has continually completely underestimated what is required for a competitive championship squad. Charlton supporters need to be patient for what reason ? What little of Roland's strategy that we see appears to be totally inadequate. Miere talks about investment but fails to mention the totally wafer thin squad. Even the pitch was funded by the sale of Kermogant. The No 9 shirt that has never been filled.
Miere is talking to Charlton supporters as though they are naughty school children who have the temerity to express an opinion. There really are some ill judged comments here. A Chief Executive on paper only. KM is just an uncritical mouthpiece for Roland. I had time for Katrien Miere but for me she has lost all credibility.
Still doesn't explain how Luzon got the job so quickly/easily though which is the bit I think truly sticks in many craws...
Us supporters are a captive, forgiving market and as such have very short memories. I wouldn't call us customers as that sort of implies we buy something and have a choice, we dont. No man changes the club he supports.
We will like it and lump it.
What I find hard to believe is people actually think owners of business would be transparent with their dealings.
Being told half truths and kept in the dark on decisions isn't unusual.
IMO, the last lot did more damage to Charlton than this lot. At least now we have warm cider in the east stand.
You might be happy being lied to, but I'm not.
Oooo she's a lawyer therefore everything she says is gospel.
Really? Have you ever dealt with lawyers?
They have been known to tell a porky or two to get the right result (but of course not suggesting that km has in anyway)
We may have been spoilt with our relations with previous boards, with greater fan representatives and consultation, but they did that because they needed our MONEY, this lot don't and have no need to involve or consult us. If we don't like it we have a choice AS CUSTOMERS to do one.
If anyone can trully say they were happy with how we were playing recently under Bob I would be suprised, we may not like how it was done but it was probably as right a decision as those on SCP, Reed or Parkinson.
Hopefully the decision to replace Bob, will in time prove correct, if it doesn't then we can criticize, complain, refuse to attend etc, but I don't expect his replacements recruitment process to be any different. I would also expect looking at the comments she made recently that in future we won't hear ANYTHING substantial from Katrin.
More to the point, he's either here to make money or he's here to see if his theory can work, which will only be proved by, er, making money. He can't do it without the fans. This, for me, is his primary fundamental misconception - not his only one either.
She also admits it is up to the club to prove that Duchatelet’s business model can be successful
Surely he should show the club it can be successful not the other way round.