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.
The truth is that it doesn't mater. If KM was just telling us what she had been instructed to tell us, if it was not true then we still can't trust what she says - even if we can convince ourselves that we can trust her.
The truth is that it doesn't mater. If KM was just telling us what she had been instructed to tell us, if it was not true then we still can't trust what she says - even if we can convince ourselves that we can trust her.
She should have come clean and said that they began looking at Luzon as a potential replacement for Peeters in late December as Bob hadn't won for over a month or 5/6 games at the time!
We could look at this a tad more generously. KM was clearly put in an untenable position, even if she was naive (and I'm not saying she was necessarily). It is possible that she was trying to give the right message to the fans, even if mindful of how RD was likely to operate, but every time she spoke up she was unaware of the decisions made in the background. It's a tangled web indeed to recover from that. If she was trying to keep the fans informed and giving a positive message, we should take account of the intention as much as the outcome.
Either way I think she's been badly damaged in terms of her credibility. That would be a shame. Everyone deserves a second chance in my book, but it is difficult to see her role in the truest sense of what most of us understand as a CEO if she has no autonomy regarding decisions for the business. Perhaps it would be in her interests for that to be clarified. I have a suspicion that she may have made many different decisions to those RD has taken in the last 12 months.
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.
Have I missed something, Rick - where has it been said or claimed that KM made the decision to appoint Luzon/sack Peeters? It would always be the owner (normally but not always Chairman) who decides on a manager/head coach appointment and I'm sure KM provided 'on the ground' feedback to RD if the reports of misconduct are true - so involved but not the decision maker.
We could look at this a tad more generously. KM was clearly put in an untenable position, even if she was naive (and I'm not saying she was necessarily). It is possible that she was trying to give the right message to the fans, even if mindful of how RD was likely to operate, but every time she spoke up she was unaware of the decisions made in the background. It's a tangled web indeed to recover from that. If she was trying to keep the fans informed and giving a positive message, we should take account of the intention as much as the outcome.
Either way I think she's been badly damaged in terms of her credibility. That would be a shame. Everyone deserves a second chance in my book, but it is difficult to see her role in the truest sense of what most of us understand as a CEO if she has no autonomy regarding decisions for the business. Perhaps it would be in her interests for that to be clarified. I have a suspicion that she may have made many different decisions to those RD has taken in the last 12 months.
I just don't buy that part or reasoning for a second, sorry. Never will.
why would you "trust" any head of CAFC ? history tells us they have treated us like shit for generations------there are a few exceptions but the majority didnt give a shit what we thought or what we did.
From Gliksteens to the letter telling us we were playing at Shitouts Park in two weeks time to the shit way that shareholders lost ALL their money and the two Dell Boys in charge its been mainly bullshit and contempt.
Of course there was one or two brief beacons of light but they were brief in the history of this club.
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.
Have I missed something, Rick - where has it been said or claimed that KM made the decision to appoint Luzon/sack Peeters? It would always be the owner (normally but not always Chairman) who decides on a manager/head coach appointment and I'm sure KM provided 'on the ground' feedback to RD if the reports of misconduct are true - so involved but not the decision maker.
There's been plenty of use of the first person singular and plural to imply her being party to the decisions - for example putting Matthew and Roberts in charge in Monday's statement. It grated with me at the time, as I said on here, because it was beyond what I would expect of previous chief executives.
In any event, I was responding to Prague's statement that it was RD's decision.
A lot of us in the workplace have been undermined by those above us, sometimes deliberately, as they want us to fire the warning shots they don't want to fire themselves so they can come in themselves on their metaphorical white chargers and appear the "nice guy" which they perceive enhances their popularity and credibility.
A lot of people also have grandiose job titles which either mean little or do not reflect what they do.
My speculation on RD KM is that KM is very capable at what she does, ie the legal side of drafting and negotiating contracts etc, which is probably partly why RD can seemingly use and abuse managers and players as if they are panini cards being swapped in the playground.
KM appears to be a bright, ambitious young lady though so rewarding her with the title CEO and giving her a payrise gives her the illusion she is climbing the greasy pole thus keeping her onside whilst also enabling RD to tap into her expertise whilst doing exactly what he likes.
KM has probably learned a lot about the unsavoury realities of working life this week to match her undoubted technical expertise in her field.
It seems to me this a break down in communications/ or lack of between KM and RD. With RD being a very hands on owner we have to accept that KM has little or no say over the coaching and playing staff. RD has the last and first word on these things by the looks.
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.
Have I missed something, Rick - where has it been said or claimed that KM made the decision to appoint Luzon/sack Peeters? It would always be the owner (normally but not always Chairman) who decides on a manager/head coach appointment and I'm sure KM provided 'on the ground' feedback to RD if the reports of misconduct are true - so involved but not the decision maker.
There's been plenty of use of the first person singular and plural to imply her being party to the decisions - for example putting Matthew and Roberts in charge in Monday's statement. It grated with me at the time, as I said on here, because it was beyond what I would expect of previous chief executives.
In any event, I was responding to Prague's statement that it was RD's decision.
I must have missed the first person singular perpendicular pronoun then as in KM saying 'I decided to sack Peeters' or 'I decided to appoint Luzon'. I may have seen the odd 'we' but in that context the 'we' almost certainly, in everyday speech, refers to the entity, in this case Charlton Athletic Football Club.
In my direct experience of involvement with a professional football club the Chairman calls the shots on the playing side, the CEO runs the commercial operation and would only get involved in negotiations with agents and players/managers/head coaches over contract arrangements. If the CEO of the club appointed the manager I would be worried - their primary role is commercial and a secondary role of communicator to the outside world as the club's representative. It is not the same role as a CEO of a FTSE company.
Did Reg make the decision to appoint Dowie? Or was it RM with perhaps Reg's input and opinions?
Is it possible that she recieved the said number of applications, assumed that there would be an interview process but was then informed by RD not to bother, he was sending his mate round as he already has his own whistle from SL.
We could look at this a tad more generously. KM was clearly put in an untenable position, even if she was naive (and I'm not saying she was necessarily). It is possible that she was trying to give the right message to the fans, even if mindful of how RD was likely to operate, but every time she spoke up she was unaware of the decisions made in the background. It's a tangled web indeed to recover from that. If she was trying to keep the fans informed and giving a positive message, we should take account of the intention as much as the outcome.
Either way I think she's been badly damaged in terms of her credibility. That would be a shame. Everyone deserves a second chance in my book, but it is difficult to see her role in the truest sense of what most of us understand as a CEO if she has no autonomy regarding decisions for the business. Perhaps it would be in her interests for that to be clarified. I have a suspicion that she may have made many different decisions to those RD has taken in the last 12 months.
I just don't buy that part or reasoning for a second, sorry. Never will.
Not trying to persuade you or me for that matter - just offering another perspective. Probably more that RD had no idea what she was putting out there, and certainly I would suggest the speed of it all surprised her.
I fully understand that RD made the decision to sack BP and appoint GL, that is his prerogative. But surely it was up to KM as Ch Exec to decide how she promulgated this information to supporters and the media, as some one has said previously it would have been far better if after confirming BP's departure she stated that Gl was being appointed by RD instead of all that rubbish about interview and a coach for the long term. We might not have liked it but it wold have been the truth.
I don't like RD's way and have been very critical of KM but now feel it is time to get behind GL and the team and hope for better things, but like many of us I won't trust any utterances from KM until she proves to be more open and honest with us supporters.
I recall receiving lots of CV's immediately after Pardew left. The majority of them were laughable and discarded immediately. Lots of agents on the phone, emails etc. 20 applicants within an hour isn't as ridiculous as it sounds. Even on a Sunday evening.
I recall receiving lots of CV's immediately after Pardew left. The majority of them were laughable and discarded immediately. Lots of agents on the phone, emails etc. 20 applicants within an hour isn't as ridiculous as it sounds. Even on a Sunday evening.
It's not that 20 applicants part that's the issue. It's the idea that Katrien Meire considered or even interviewed them.
I fully understand that RM made the decision to sack BP and appoint GL, that is his prerogative. But surely it was up to KM as Ch Exec to decide how she promulgated this information to supporters and the media, as some one has said previously it would have been far better if after confirming BP's departure she stated that Gl was being appointed by RD instead of all that rubbish about interview and a coach for the long term. We might not have liked it but it wold have been the truth.
I don't like RM's way and have been very critical of KM but now feel it is time to get behind GL and the team and hope for better things, but like many of us I won't trust any utterances from KM until she proves to be more open and honest with us supporters.
I recall receiving lots of CV's immediately after Pardew left. The majority of them were laughable and discarded immediately. Lots of agents on the phone, emails etc. 20 applicants within an hour isn't as ridiculous as it sounds. Even on a Sunday evening.
With that being the case was there any benefit in her, even, mentioning the fact that there had been 20 of them?
On reflection Charlton must be one of the top 50 management jobs in the country and there must be at least 50 former managers that have worked for a club in the Championship or above. That, probably, makes the rush to appoint Luzon even less rational.
Having said that I would have been horrified if we'd given the job to Paul Jewel, Dave Jones or Dougie Freedman.
As I've said already, I'd have been perfectly happy (well not all that bothered/angry) if they'd sacked Bob and announced Guy in the same press conference. It's all the 'Searching' and building us up to believe that it could something exciting and/or surprising when it was, in reality, what Colin had told us was going to happen weeks ago.
My speculation on RD KM is that KM is very capable at what she does, ie the legal side of drafting and negotiating contracts etc, which is probably partly why RD can seemingly use and abuse managers and players as if they are panini cards being swapped in the playground.
I think you are over-estimating the degree of difficulty in this aspect. Football players' contracts are pretty standard fare and don't need much alteration apart from the actual monetary reward and perhaps a buyout clause. (Even the bonus structure is likely to be one of a number of standard schedules which applies to all the players). So, as long as you can "cut and paste" and you've got RD's consent for the money, you are sorted. In any event isn't most of this what Chris Parkes does as club secretary?
We could look at this a tad more generously. KM was clearly put in an untenable position, even if she was naive (and I'm not saying she was necessarily). It is possible that she was trying to give the right message to the fans, even if mindful of how RD was likely to operate, but every time she spoke up she was unaware of the decisions made in the background. It's a tangled web indeed to recover from that. If she was trying to keep the fans informed and giving a positive message, we should take account of the intention as much as the outcome.
Either way I think she's been badly damaged in terms of her credibility. That would be a shame. Everyone deserves a second chance in my book, but it is difficult to see her role in the truest sense of what most of us understand as a CEO if she has no autonomy regarding decisions for the business. Perhaps it would be in her interests for that to be clarified. I have a suspicion that she may have made many different decisions to those RD has taken in the last 12 months.
I do agree , it is indeed a 'tangled web', and for the sake of her own credibility, and the position she currently occupies, there is a need for a clear, statement/apology/clarification on those incidents. Hopefully she will reflect on those issues, learn from them, and consider the lines of communication beetween herself and RD are consistent in future. She also has an overriding duty to protect all the members of staff of the club, from intimidation even by the owner if people overstep the mark, and manage the business. I would expect no less.
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.
Have I missed something, Rick - where has it been said or claimed that KM made the decision to appoint Luzon/sack Peeters? It would always be the owner (normally but not always Chairman) who decides on a manager/head coach appointment and I'm sure KM provided 'on the ground' feedback to RD if the reports of misconduct are true - so involved but not the decision maker.
There's been plenty of use of the first person singular and plural to imply her being party to the decisions - for example putting Matthew and Roberts in charge in Monday's statement. It grated with me at the time, as I said on here, because it was beyond what I would expect of previous chief executives.
In any event, I was responding to Prague's statement that it was RD's decision.
I must have missed the first person singular perpendicular pronoun then as in KM saying 'I decided to sack Peeters' or 'I decided to appoint Luzon'. I may have seen the odd 'we' but in that context the 'we' almost certainly, in everyday speech, refers to the entity, in this case Charlton Athletic Football Club.
In my direct experience of involvement with a professional football club the Chairman calls the shots on the playing side, the CEO runs the commercial operation and would only get involved in negotiations with agents and players/managers/head coaches over contract arrangements. If the CEO of the club appointed the manager I would be worried - their primary role is commercial and a secondary role of communicator to the outside world as the club's representative. It is not the same role as a CEO of a FTSE company.
Did Reg make the decision to appoint Dowie? Or was it RM with perhaps Reg's input and opinions?
My point all along has been that the decisions would not be made by the chief executive, which is why the presentation has been laughable.
For example, why allow Sky to claim that KM was interviewing him when he arrived at The Valley on Tuesday evening. The decision had already been made and in reality was made at the same moment RD decided to sack Peeters, so why was it not announced before that?
I doubt the club wanted to imply KM was interviewing Luzon, but you have to manage the media. Allowing Sky to purport to show an interview through the window was crass.
Absolutely agree with Suzi - of the 20 instant applicants, it's likely at least 19 were Acworths - if not Acworth's.
Comments
She should have come clean and said that they began looking at Luzon as a potential replacement for Peeters in late December as Bob hadn't won for over a month or 5/6 games at the time!
Either way I think she's been badly damaged in terms of her credibility. That would be a shame. Everyone deserves a second chance in my book, but it is difficult to see her role in the truest sense of what most of us understand as a CEO if she has no autonomy regarding decisions for the business. Perhaps it would be in her interests for that to be clarified. I have a suspicion that she may have made many different decisions to those RD has taken in the last 12 months.
From Gliksteens to the letter telling us we were playing at Shitouts Park in two weeks time to the shit way that shareholders lost ALL their money and the two Dell Boys in charge its been mainly bullshit and contempt.
Of course there was one or two brief beacons of light but they were brief in the history of this club.
I
In any event, I was responding to Prague's statement that it was RD's decision.
A lot of people also have grandiose job titles which either mean little or do not reflect what they do.
My speculation on RD KM is that KM is very capable at what she does, ie the legal side of drafting and negotiating contracts etc, which is probably partly why RD can seemingly use and abuse managers and players as if they are panini cards being swapped in the playground.
KM appears to be a bright, ambitious young lady though so rewarding her with the title CEO and giving her a payrise gives her the illusion she is climbing the greasy pole thus keeping her onside whilst also enabling RD to tap into her expertise whilst doing exactly what he likes.
KM has probably learned a lot about the unsavoury realities of working life this week to match her undoubted technical expertise in her field.
In my direct experience of involvement with a professional football club the Chairman calls the shots on the playing side, the CEO runs the commercial operation and would only get involved in negotiations with agents and players/managers/head coaches over contract arrangements. If the CEO of the club appointed the manager I would be worried - their primary role is commercial and a secondary role of communicator to the outside world as the club's representative. It is not the same role as a CEO of a FTSE company.
Did Reg make the decision to appoint Dowie? Or was it RM with perhaps Reg's input and opinions?
I don't like RD's way and have been very critical of KM but now feel it is time to get behind GL and the team and hope for better things, but like many of us I won't trust any utterances from KM until she proves to be more open and honest with us supporters.
(edited with RD instead of RM)
On reflection Charlton must be one of the top 50 management jobs in the country and there must be at least 50 former managers that have worked for a club in the Championship or above. That, probably, makes the rush to appoint Luzon even less rational.
Having said that I would have been horrified if we'd given the job to Paul Jewel, Dave Jones or Dougie Freedman.
As I've said already, I'd have been perfectly happy (well not all that bothered/angry) if they'd sacked Bob and announced Guy in the same press conference. It's all the 'Searching' and building us up to believe that it could something exciting and/or surprising when it was, in reality, what Colin had told us was going to happen weeks ago.
In any event isn't most of this what Chris Parkes does as club secretary?
Katrien Miere is in an impossible position and has been put in an impossible position by RD
Think it says it all vff. I do agree , it is indeed a 'tangled web', and for the sake of her own credibility, and the position she currently occupies, there is a need for a clear, statement/apology/clarification on those incidents. Hopefully she will reflect on those issues, learn from them, and consider the lines of communication beetween herself and RD are consistent in future. She also has an overriding duty to protect all the members of staff of the club, from intimidation even by the owner if people overstep the mark, and manage the business. I would expect no less.
For example, why allow Sky to claim that KM was interviewing him when he arrived at The Valley on Tuesday evening. The decision had already been made and in reality was made at the same moment RD decided to sack Peeters, so why was it not announced before that?
I doubt the club wanted to imply KM was interviewing Luzon, but you have to manage the media. Allowing Sky to purport to show an interview through the window was crass.
Absolutely agree with Suzi - of the 20 instant applicants, it's likely at least 19 were Acworths - if not Acworth's.