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.
There's a danger that younger Lifers may take a misunderstanding of what happened in the 90's from your description. The "funds from individuals" you are talking about are (presumably) firstly the VIP plan (which was launched while we were at Upton Park) and the public offering of shares which came much later (Airman will doubtless remind us when).
There are three points to make here
1. They were not the only sources of funds. The directors at the time invested millions over several years. Principally Richard Murray but also Martin Simons and also Mike Stevens. In these cases many of those millions have been written off (lost, to you and I) and its worth mentioning that -again - to those who so casually slag RM off now
2. The VIP plan was basically £1m raised by ordinary supporters digging deep. They did this because there was a high level of trust and openness
3. Both the VIP scheme and the later share issue brought fan representation, but largely because the directors considered it a right and sensible thing to do. The actual shareholding the supporter director represented was a tiny %, which brought its own problems, admittedly.
However there was something else going on in the background. When we left the Valley in 1985 our gates were poor. Basically, 5,000, in the 2nd division (unless Newcastle came to the Valley).
When we returned, the Board looked to fans to fill roles in the club and to talk to other fans about how best to keep the Valley full once the initial euphoria died down (and the team started to struggle, as it did at various stages until 2000). This was notably successful. The Valley was full, and it was this that helped the share placement to be successful. Charlton looked like a successful business Customers were turning up, recommending it to their friends, and contributing to the financial health of the business of which they were customers.
I repeat, all this happened throughout the 90s based on a high level of trust created by frankness and openness from the Board. Not just success on the field. Hell, we were relegated in 1999. The Trust statement of yesterday reminds the current Board of that fact.
The threat now is that the perception of duplicity, deception, and treating of fans as nothing more than cattle to be herded through the turnstiles, will result, not in riots as in Liege, but the opposite of the 90s: a slow erosion of season ticket and then walk up attendance. I am absolutely convinced that Roland Duchatelet does not want that result.
Inevitably many of us are upset at the lack of transparency and apparent duplicity - even if (like me) your expectations about the standards of football club management in these respects is not especially high.
Just as unnerving, however, is how inept they are - as others have pointed out, if you're going to lie (or not tell the whole truth), at least don't get caught out. KM's naivety doesn't bode well if we are relying on her to have smart negotiations with agents, etc.
The RD regime has almost certainly 'saved' CAFC, and i am genuinely grateful for that. But there are too many mistakes, and if you're not going to be nice, trustworthy or transparent, at least be smart & successful. But the events of the past week make them look anything but.
There is, I think, a strong inclination to overestimate the "intelligence" of lawyers. The basic skill needed to become a lawyer is a very good memory, which is an entirely different thing. Some lawyers are indeed very clever: I have rarely failed to be anything other than impressed by Judges, QCs or partners at city law firms. Many people get the qualification but fail to make the grade. KM's CV rather suggests she is one of these (otherwise she'd be in Brussels or EC2 not SE7). We need to think of her in that way maybe?
To those who still ask for them to share their strategy - they have done on several occasions. Roland sees football as a business so we are expected to breakeven.
With current losses of c £5M pa, the only conceivable way to do this is through player assets - getting players "on the cheap" through youth or shrewd signings THEN SELLING THEM ON AT A PROFIT. Just look at Liege this summer to see it in action.
And if we don't like it, we can lump it as we cannot afford to buy Roland out.
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.
There's a danger that younger Lifers may take a misunderstanding of what happened in the 90's from your description. The "funds from individuals" you are talking about are (presumably) firstly the VIP plan (which was launched while we were at Upton Park) and the public offering of shares which came much later (Airman will doubtless remind us when).
There are three points to make here
1. They were not the only sources of funds. The directors at the time invested millions over several years. Principally Richard Murray but also Martin Simons and also Mike Stevens. In these cases many of those millions have been written off (lost, to you and I) and its worth mentioning that -again - to those who so casually slag RM off now
2. The VIP plan was basically £1m raised by ordinary supporters digging deep. They did this because there was a high level of trust and openness
3. Both the VIP scheme and the later share issue brought fan representation, but largely because the directors considered it a right and sensible thing to do. The actual shareholding the supporter director represented was a tiny %, which brought its own problems, admittedly.
However there was something else going on in the background. When we left the Valley in 1985 our gates were poor. Basically, 5,000, in the 2nd division (unless Newcastle came to the Valley).
When we returned, the Board looked to fans to fill roles in the club and to talk to other fans about how best to keep the Valley full once the initial euphoria died down (and the team started to struggle, as it did at various stages until 2000). This was notably successful. The Valley was full, and it was this that helped the share placement to be successful. Charlton looked like a successful business Customers were turning up, recommending it to their friends, and contributing to the financial health of the business of which they were customers.
I repeat, all this happened throughout the 90s based on a high level of trust created by frankness and openness from the Board. Not just success on the field. Hell, we were relegated in 1999. The Trust statement of yesterday reminds the current Board of that fact.
The threat now is that the perception of duplicity, deception, and treating of fans as nothing more than cattle to be herded through the turnstiles, will result, not in riots as in Liege, but the opposite of the 90s: a slow erosion of season ticket and then walk up attendance. I am absolutely convinced that Roland Duchatelet does not want that result.
What I meant was that the unprecented access we obtained at board level was through fan representatives on the back of the VIP scheme etc. This was as a result of the then boards need for additional funds from supporters, whose contributions helped us get back to the Valley. This influence at board level is no longer required/ welcomed/ tolerated as the current owners do not require fan input for capital projects, just as paying supporters, which is fair enough!.
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 :-)
I would hope not. Our male fan base do seem to have been taken in by her good looks, but that was Roland's plan in appointing her. He knows what he is doing!
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.
There is plenty of available evidence proving that she is a liar so she wouldn't get very far.
Your 'plenty of evidence proving she is a liar' looks a bit flimsy this morning. 'It appeared at the time that she was not telling the truth' may be more appropriate. However the whole did she, didn't she argument could be aid to rest by the trust asking the club to issue a statement saying how many (no names) people had been interviewed. I they refused we could all join you in calling K.M. a liar.
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.
There's a danger that younger Lifers may take a misunderstanding of what happened in the 90's from your description. The "funds from individuals" you are talking about are (presumably) firstly the VIP plan (which was launched while we were at Upton Park) and the public offering of shares which came much later (Airman will doubtless remind us when).
There are three points to make here
1. They were not the only sources of funds. The directors at the time invested millions over several years. Principally Richard Murray but also Martin Simons and also Mike Stevens. In these cases many of those millions have been written off (lost, to you and I) and its worth mentioning that -again - to those who so casually slag RM off now
2. The VIP plan was basically £1m raised by ordinary supporters digging deep. They did this because there was a high level of trust and openness
3. Both the VIP scheme and the later share issue brought fan representation, but largely because the directors considered it a right and sensible thing to do. The actual shareholding the supporter director represented was a tiny %, which brought its own problems, admittedly.
However there was something else going on in the background. When we left the Valley in 1985 our gates were poor. Basically, 5,000, in the 2nd division (unless Newcastle came to the Valley).
When we returned, the Board looked to fans to fill roles in the club and to talk to other fans about how best to keep the Valley full once the initial euphoria died down (and the team started to struggle, as it did at various stages until 2000). This was notably successful. The Valley was full, and it was this that helped the share placement to be successful. Charlton looked like a successful business Customers were turning up, recommending it to their friends, and contributing to the financial health of the business of which they were customers.
I repeat, all this happened throughout the 90s based on a high level of trust created by frankness and openness from the Board. Not just success on the field. Hell, we were relegated in 1999. The Trust statement of yesterday reminds the current Board of that fact.
The threat now is that the perception of duplicity, deception, and treating of fans as nothing more than cattle to be herded through the turnstiles, will result, not in riots as in Liege, but the opposite of the 90s: a slow erosion of season ticket and then walk up attendance. I am absolutely convinced that Roland Duchatelet does not want that result.
What I meant was that the unprecented access we obtained at board level was through fan representatives on the back of the VIP scheme etc. This was as a result of the then boards need for additional funds from supporters, whose contributions helped us get back to the Valley. This influence at board level is no longer required/ welcomed/ tolerated as the current owners do not require fan input for capital projects, just as paying supporters, which is fair enough!.
I understood you, but I still think the reality was slightly different to what you describe, and ignores another important element. There have been several examples of similar fundraising at other clubs where Board representation was not offered. Also, it was not just the supporter on the board that contributed to the perception of openness. Richard Murray and other directors would talk to fans both formally and informally and go into unprecedented detail about the finances. For example at Bromley Addicks, where afterwards @Henry Irving would wind up people like me by saying that the details were confidential to those at the meeting. But it was very smart policy. They were explaining the reality - the uncomfortable reality - of football finance, to those fans who were really interested in the finances, and who were able to explain this to other fans (via VOTV for example).
The current board may not require fan input for capital projects. But you admit that they are needed as paying supporters. If you review this and other social media, you can see the trends in how others are thinking and the threat that poses to "customer revenue," even if you personally disagree with them.
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.
There is plenty of available evidence proving that she is a liar so she wouldn't get very far.
Your 'plenty of evidence proving she is a liar' looks a bit flimsy this morning. 'It appeared at the time that she was not telling the truth' may be more appropriate. However the whole did she, didn't she argument could be aid to rest by the trust asking the club to issue a statement saying how many (no names) people had been interviewed. I they refused we could all join you in calling K.M. a liar.
Your 'plenty of evidence proving she is a liar' looks a bit flimsy this morning. 'It appeared at the time that she was not telling the truth' may be more appropriate. However the whole did she, didn't she argument could be laid to rest by the trust asking the club to issue a statement saying how many (no names) people had been interviewed. If they refused we could all join you in calling K.M. a liar. Sorry about the spelling errors.
The influence of supporters does not need to involve one being on the board. Indeed, I'd argue that the importance of the elected director was substantially though not entirely symbolic, but it did epitomise the culture of the club.
Although people talk about the Glikstens, Mark Hulyer, etc, it needs to be recognised that Charlton are operating in a very different world now. All the club really did in those days was play football, but the consequence was declining crowds in ramshackle facilities. There was almost no interaction not mediated by the local press. Those administrations would have been quickly torn apart in the modern environment.
At Charlton we have demonstrated the value - yes, recognisable in pounds and pence - of harnessing the abilities, energy, knowledge and enthusiasm of supporters. It worked - except on the pitch, which remains the realm of the football experts and most of us respect that. When the club failed it did so on the pitch, not off it.
Unfortunately, the previous regime have reset the clock at the club. At the same time, RD appears to be a man with a Messianic belief in his own abilities.
This has and will lead to mistakes, large and small. More are on the way. Issues like Crossbars and the mess made of the programme sales would not have happened if there was any understanding of the business within the business. The attempt to distinguish between a business now and a club in the past is a false one - it is both and non-football decisions have been "business-like" since 1994, at least. That is, since RM took control.
Henry Irving can tell you that in club development from 2005 we never did anything without exploring the business case and testing it to destruction internally and beyond. It is total nonsense to suggest otherwise. But getting the buy-in of supporters and building their trust in the club is a key part of that.
Realistically, Meire is not equipped by her background to make prudent business decisions and not allowed by her patron to establish mechanisms where she can take advantage of the knowledge available, because all is to be subordinated to the views of RD. She is probably as big a mistake as Bob Peeters, but I have a feeling that nobody could ultimately succeed in either role.
Actually having slept on it for a few days i think she is getting unnecessary stick.
And having heard one or two more details, I'm inclined to think you are right.
I'm not sure it matters now. The die is cast. People believe she lied and, ultimately, the chap that most were predicting, even before Bob was sacked, was given the job in a remarkably short time period.
She also said that the club didn't interview any English managers so I'm not sure of Pullis's definition of 'Paul [Jewel] was in for the Charlton Job'. When Curbishley left I applied for the job - hoping for a reply from the club, which I never received - but I wouldn't say I was 'in for the Charlton job'.
The only reasons she wouldn't deserve criticism is if she genuinely believed they were going to interview candidates, with some British. Even if that's true though, she still then lied / omitted to tell the truth at the press conference. Either way, she's not to be trusted.
What actually happened was completely at odds with her statement in the programme on Saturday and her statement re the recruitment process on Monday. She was perhaps trying to say what she wanted people to hear, but it certainly turned out not to be the truth. She then completely contradicted herself after Luzon's appointment by saying he became the favourite on Sunday night. Not sure what "little details" could change that? If she knew Bob was behaving badly, then why make that statement in the programme? If she knew Luzon was already lined up for the job, then why make the statement on Monday?
Well the key is she is not the owner - she just follows orders what the owner requires - sometimes it is just better to tell a little white lie even though in this case it has blown up in her face, Roland does pay her wages at the end of the day. Its not ideal but while we are under ownership from Roland in my opinion we are better off having the likes of Luzon in charge as he knows what he is getting into regarding players from the network etc. So for me he WAS the best candidate for the job, perhaps the club did receive twenty CVs but that does not mean you have to interview them, it could of been the case of nope, nope , nope bin them then "Luzon is obviously our man!" I am sure time will tell.
good point there Scabby about Luzon. At least he knows how RD operates and what he is getting into. We know how fast things went downhill when CP was in charge and it would likely have gone the same way whichever English manager we had appointed. They would have thought they could work under certain conditions but in time wouldn't have been able to and we'd be looking at another quick managerial change. RD and Luzon can work together, that is half the battle.
Actually having slept on it for a few days i think she is getting unnecessary stick.
And having heard one or two more details, I'm inclined to think you are right.
c'mon Prague you can't just leave it like that
I have to respect confidences, and also, there is always the distinct possibility that I still don't know all the details necessary to be clear about what happened.
For now: On this occasion it looks that Reams' source is solid, give or take a few details. Peeters probably had to go, and its probably better that he did. (which of course makes him a bad hire). I think we can also work on the assumption that the decision to appoint Luzon immediately was RD's alone. If so, everyone else has no choice but to go along with that decision. That is not unusual in business, heaven knows I've been there, hence my readiness to agree with @scabbyhorse. the difference of course is that I just had to explain myself to a few clients. At a football club you've got 15,000 customers and a voracious press chewing over every word and every development.
Actually having slept on it for a few days i think she is getting unnecessary stick.
And having heard one or two more details, I'm inclined to think you are right.
c'mon Prague you can't just leave it like that
I have to respect confidences, and also, there is always the distinct possibility that I still don't know all the details necessary to be clear about what happened.
For now: On this occasion it looks that Reams' source is solid, give or take a few details. Peeters probably had to go, and its probably better that he did. (which of course makes him a bad hire). I think we can also work on the assumption that the decision to appoint Luzon immediately was RD's alone. If so, everyone else has no choice but to go along with that decision. That is not unusual in business, heaven knows I've been there, hence my readiness to agree with @scabbyhorse. the difference of course is that I just had to explain myself to a few clients. At a football club you've got 15,000 customers and a voracious press chewing over every word and every development.
It's an absolute cast-iron certainty it was RD's decision alone. That's how he is, but it's no good KM pretending she's involved then, is it? It just makes her look even more ridiculous.
I'm prepared to give KM the benefit of the doubt as although she might be RD's stooge I doubt he keeps her fully in the loop and his sacking of BP may have been unexpected to her, at least that soon. That would explain her programme article, written as she had heard the Luzon rumours and felt it needed some sort of response, and also the drawing up of a shortlist (maybe even tentative enquiries to managers/their agents ie Jewell) looks to me like she thought there would be some sort of recruitment process until RD rang her and said I've appointed Guy Luzon. To me she has been dealt a poor hand and made to look a plum by RD. She shouldn't be hung out to dry for that.
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.
There is plenty of available evidence proving that she is a liar so she wouldn't get very far.
Your 'plenty of evidence proving she is a liar' looks a bit flimsy this morning. 'It appeared at the time that she was not telling the truth' may be more appropriate. However the whole did she, didn't she argument could be aid to rest by the trust asking the club to issue a statement saying how many (no names) people had been interviewed. I they refused we could all join you in calling K.M. a liar.
She stated that she had 20 candidates an hour after Peeters left. Within a couple of hours it was clear that Luzon was the outstanding candidate. So please tell me, how did she managed to interview a number of potential candidates in that time and come to the conclusion that Luzon was the best man for the job? I mean Luzon didn't even get seen until the next day for gods sake, so Luzon was already in the frame without even being interviewed. So forgive me if I find it all so hard to believe... The woman IS a liar.
Just a separate comment about the Standard interview. It seems to me that Meire either does not know or has not taken into account our past history. Charlton fans are not well known for sitting on their hands when the club is in crisis. She would do well to look back upon those dark days in the 1980s and realise that the ONLY reason we are even still here today is through some amazing fans and their unprecedented actions. I am certain that if this model was showing signs of success, they would have more fans right behind them. It's up to them to PROVE to us that their model works. Once they do that they will get more support.
Fine. It's quite clear it was RD's decision alone. Why then lie and say we'll be interviewing other candidates and then lie again at the press conference. I think the majority of fans wouldn't have been as angry if they'd just appointed Luzon on Sunday night, like they did with Riga.
Fine. It's quite clear it was RD's decision alone. Why then lie and say we'll be interviewing other candidates and then lie again at the press conference. I think the majority of fans wouldn't have been as angry if they'd just appointed Luzon on Sunday night, like they did with Riga.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-bromwich-albion/11349679/West-Brom-manager-Tony-Pulis-reveals-Paul-Jewell-was-Charlton-candidate.html
I'm sure he was interested, as many others would have been-they obviously don't know too well how our board works though.
There are three points to make here
1. They were not the only sources of funds. The directors at the time invested millions over several years. Principally Richard Murray but also Martin Simons and also Mike Stevens. In these cases many of those millions have been written off (lost, to you and I) and its worth mentioning that -again - to those who so casually slag RM off now
2. The VIP plan was basically £1m raised by ordinary supporters digging deep. They did this because there was a high level of trust and openness
3. Both the VIP scheme and the later share issue brought fan representation, but largely because the directors considered it a right and sensible thing to do. The actual shareholding the supporter director represented was a tiny %, which brought its own problems, admittedly.
However there was something else going on in the background. When we left the Valley in 1985 our gates were poor. Basically, 5,000, in the 2nd division (unless Newcastle came to the Valley).
When we returned, the Board looked to fans to fill roles in the club and to talk to other fans about how best to keep the Valley full once the initial euphoria died down (and the team started to struggle, as it did at various stages until 2000). This was notably successful. The Valley was full, and it was this that helped the share placement to be successful. Charlton looked like a successful business Customers were turning up, recommending it to their friends, and contributing to the financial health of the business of which they were customers.
I repeat, all this happened throughout the 90s based on a high level of trust created by frankness and openness from the Board. Not just success on the field. Hell, we were relegated in 1999. The Trust statement of yesterday reminds the current Board of that fact.
The threat now is that the perception of duplicity, deception, and treating of fans as nothing more than cattle to be herded through the turnstiles, will result, not in riots as in Liege, but the opposite of the 90s: a slow erosion of season ticket and then walk up attendance. I am absolutely convinced that Roland Duchatelet does not want that result.
Just as unnerving, however, is how inept they are - as others have pointed out, if you're going to lie (or not tell the whole truth), at least don't get caught out. KM's naivety doesn't bode well if we are relying on her to have smart negotiations with agents, etc.
The RD regime has almost certainly 'saved' CAFC, and i am genuinely grateful for that. But there are too many mistakes, and if you're not going to be nice, trustworthy or transparent, at least be smart & successful. But the events of the past week make them look anything but.
Some lawyers are indeed very clever: I have rarely failed to be anything other than impressed by Judges, QCs or partners at city law firms. Many people get the qualification but fail to make the grade. KM's CV rather suggests she is one of these (otherwise she'd be in Brussels or EC2 not SE7).
We need to think of her in that way maybe?
With current losses of c £5M pa, the only conceivable way to do this is through player assets - getting players "on the cheap" through youth or shrewd signings THEN SELLING THEM ON AT A PROFIT. Just look at Liege this summer to see it in action.
And if we don't like it, we can lump it as we cannot afford to buy Roland out.
'It appeared at the time that she was not telling the truth' may be more appropriate.
However the whole did she, didn't she argument could be aid to rest by the trust asking the club to issue a statement saying how many (no names) people had been interviewed. I they refused we could all join you in calling K.M. a liar.
The current board may not require fan input for capital projects. But you admit that they are needed as paying supporters. If you review this and other social media, you can see the trends in how others are thinking and the threat that poses to "customer revenue," even if you personally disagree with them.
'It appeared at the time that she was not telling the truth' may be more appropriate.
However the whole did she, didn't she argument could be laid to rest by the trust asking the club to issue a statement saying how many (no names) people had been interviewed. If they refused we could all join you in calling K.M. a liar.
Sorry about the spelling errors.
Although people talk about the Glikstens, Mark Hulyer, etc, it needs to be recognised that Charlton are operating in a very different world now. All the club really did in those days was play football, but the consequence was declining crowds in ramshackle facilities. There was almost no interaction not mediated by the local press. Those administrations would have been quickly torn apart in the modern environment.
At Charlton we have demonstrated the value - yes, recognisable in pounds and pence - of harnessing the abilities, energy, knowledge and enthusiasm of supporters. It worked - except on the pitch, which remains the realm of the football experts and most of us respect that. When the club failed it did so on the pitch, not off it.
Unfortunately, the previous regime have reset the clock at the club. At the same time, RD appears to be a man with a Messianic belief in his own abilities.
This has and will lead to mistakes, large and small. More are on the way. Issues like Crossbars and the mess made of the programme sales would not have happened if there was any understanding of the business within the business. The attempt to distinguish between a business now and a club in the past is a false one - it is both and non-football decisions have been "business-like" since 1994, at least. That is, since RM took control.
Henry Irving can tell you that in club development from 2005 we never did anything without exploring the business case and testing it to destruction internally and beyond. It is total nonsense to suggest otherwise. But getting the buy-in of supporters and building their trust in the club is a key part of that.
Realistically, Meire is not equipped by her background to make prudent business decisions and not allowed by her patron to establish mechanisms where she can take advantage of the knowledge available, because all is to be subordinated to the views of RD. She is probably as big a mistake as Bob Peeters, but I have a feeling that nobody could ultimately succeed in either role.
She also said that the club didn't interview any English managers so I'm not sure of Pullis's definition of 'Paul [Jewel] was in for the Charlton Job'. When Curbishley left I applied for the job - hoping for a reply from the club, which I never received - but I wouldn't say I was 'in for the Charlton job'.
Its not ideal but while we are under ownership from Roland in my opinion we are better off having the likes of Luzon in charge as he knows what he is getting into regarding players from the network etc. So for me he WAS the best candidate for the job, perhaps the club did receive twenty CVs but that does not mean you have to interview them, it could of been the case of nope, nope , nope bin them then "Luzon is obviously our man!" I am sure time will tell.
For now: On this occasion it looks that Reams' source is solid, give or take a few details. Peeters probably had to go, and its probably better that he did. (which of course makes him a bad hire). I think we can also work on the assumption that the decision to appoint Luzon immediately was RD's alone. If so, everyone else has no choice but to go along with that decision. That is not unusual in business, heaven knows I've been there, hence my readiness to agree with @scabbyhorse. the difference of course is that I just had to explain myself to a few clients. At a football club you've got 15,000 customers and a voracious press chewing over every word and every development.
"Better call Meire"