The bottom line is that when you have an owner like Roland or for that matter Abrahmovich, whatever the Emirati guy who owns City is called or like the nutter who owns Leeds then there is no role for a CEO in the normal sense of the role.
These guys hire and fire at will and really don't give a monkeys about any advice from the CEO or whomever, as the Yanks say, "Them that's got the gold makes the rules."
KM fully knows this and has always known it, so there is no use feeling sorry for her.
Although we still don't know what transpired, and still won't when the minutes of the FF meeting are released as KM won't want to alienate herself with RD in any way, I am and have all along been of the opinion that KM was/is the victim of circumstance and that effectively she has been well and truely shafted by her boss, RD. I think most of the criticism of KM has been bang out of order and it's all born out of a dislike of RD and what he is trying to do and KM is just the patsy taking the flack.
Jimmy Stone @JimmyStone_ 5m5 minutes ago Considering he's been twisting Roland's arm over the #cafc job for weeks I'm amazed Luzon's work permit hasn't been sorted yet #cafc
For anyone who doubted how this recruitment process went...
Although we still don't know what transpired, and still won't when the minutes of the FF meeting are released as KM won't want to alienate herself with RD in any way, I am and have all along been of the opinion that KM was/is the victim of circumstance and that effectively she has been well and truely shafted by her boss, RD. I think most of the criticism of KM has been bang out of order and it's all born out of a dislike of RD and what he is trying to do and KM is just the patsy taking the flack.
This seems the most likely situation from what little we can see. I get the impression KM is genuine but in a tricky spot. Her programme notes were what you'd expect someone in her position to write, and it was likely the beam back to RD that finally did for BP - KM couldn't have known a week before (probably when she wrote her notes) how things would unfold. She's had to try and pick up the pieces of this mess, and I imagine she's learned a fair bit about dealing with RD from this farrago. Of course she takes RD's shilling so it's hard to be sympathetic, but we've all had bosses who've dropped us in it.
Although we still don't know what transpired, and still won't when the minutes of the FF meeting are released as KM won't want to alienate herself with RD in any way, I am and have all along been of the opinion that KM was/is the victim of circumstance and that effectively she has been well and truely shafted by her boss, RD. I think most of the criticism of KM has been bang out of order and it's all born out of a dislike of RD and what he is trying to do and KM is just the patsy taking the flack.
This seems the most likely situation from what little we can see. I get the impression KM is genuine but in a tricky spot. Her programme notes were what you'd expect someone in her position to write, and it was likely the beam back to RD that finally did for BP - KM couldn't have known a week before (probably when she wrote her notes) how things would unfold. She's had to try and pick up the pieces of this mess, and I imagine she's learned a fair bit about dealing with RD from this farrago. Of course she takes RD's shilling so it's hard to be sympathetic, but we've all had bosses who've dropped us in it.
That assumes she didn't know about the reported issues at the training ground, which either way does not reflect well, or did not take them into account when writing her article, which must have been written after the Luzon rumour broke and in any event wouid not have been finalised until 48 hours before the game.
Even if the sacking of Peeters came as a bolt from the blue to her, the statement on Monday and her remarks on Wednesday (live) and to the Standard (for Thursday) were equally ill advised and on Wednesday she was talking about what had happened, not being expected to predict the future.
I have flagged your remark as abuse, I have been one of KM's critics but there is no reason for you to resort to such language which is easy to do through this medium.
It must be a real juggling act between keeping us informed and happy, and still having to keep in with the boss who seems to have some very specific and individual ways of running the evil empire. Does this make Katrin the equivilent of the PR to Ming the Merciless?
I do recall Paolo Di Canio's agent calling me to say Paolo wanted to get into football management. Very compelling argument but not sure what he thought I could do about it and a CV from a football manager who put one of his life achievements as being married for 35 years. (with 10 exclamation marks after it!)
Football has a very different business/set up to a normal business. Things obviously have changed since I was there, but footballing aspects were pretty seperate to the business side of things and I'm convinced KM was saying/doing what she thought was relevant/appropriate and then in a very short space of time, was made to look silly by doing so which was down to RD. Not uncommon at any club for the chairman to have their own views/opinions/ego that may not play into the day to day running of the business - considering they would rarely be in the 'office' of that business and therefore do the majority of their liaising with various people at various levels via telephone/email etc. ( I worked for a chairman of a football club after I worked at CAFC)
Anyway, I'm sure she's not spent 3 days talking/thinking about it like we have on here and has moved on!
Nice one, suzi.
Problem is, as I stated earlier on the FF thread, she was upset & angry at being constantly referred to as a liar via social media.
Regardless of what AB, PA & others who seems to know FAR more than most regarding a CEO's duties & responsibilities, this is a young woman trying to do her best to "please" two masters - RD and the supporters. And yes, I do believe that the latter is true , albeit that it is the most difficult of the two by far & probably beyond her personal remit.
If, as I believe, the conclusion that PA has finally reached is the correct one, rather than hoping for" a clear statement /apology/clarification of said incidents" , might I humbly suggest that with the correct facts now in our hands, an apology be made to the lady herself ?
And before someone thinks of this as a member of the FF "crawling" , I'd like to remind you that along with others including razil, I listened to Katrien's words on Thursday evening and heard the facts which you all appear to be aware of at last. She didn't duck out of that meeting as she could have done under the circumstances. She faced what were in effect some of her critics, of which I was one to some degree on Tuesday evening, to my shame.
Whatever our feelings about RD & his network, and only time will tell whether he has the recipe for success or not, surely we need to show his representative at our Club that we are not hounds baying for blood, we are better than that , but as passionate supporters, we too make mistakes.
And my final word tonight is wouldn't it have been better for AB's mole to have reported back Katrien's clear & concise explanation of what transpired on Saturday/Sunday/Monday/Tuesday rather than the puerile example of what followed ?
RESPECT, guys.
Sorry Fanny, but I have to partly disagree with you on this (probably the first time I have).
I was one of KM's critics in the past week but made it clear, as many others did, that I thought she was either lying or had been hung out to dry by RD. I accept what you say, that she was not lying, but it seems incontrovertible that the alternative explanation, that RD made her look like a mug, is true. Whether her actual duties warrant the title, she is nevertheless presented as our Chief Exec, and she has to bear some of the responsibility.
The person she should be upset with is Roland, not the fans, who were understandably upset and confused by the clear disconnect between her statements and what actually happened. Not for us to apologise. We didn't make the mistakes.
But, time for her and us to put all this behind us now.
This seems the most likely situation from what little we can see. I get the impression KM is genuine but in a tricky spot. Her programme notes were what you'd expect someone in her position to write, and it was likely the beam back to RD that finally did for BP - KM couldn't have known a week before (probably when she wrote her notes) how things would unfold. She's had to try and pick up the pieces of this mess, and I imagine she's learned a fair bit about dealing with RD from this farrago. Of course she takes RD's shilling so it's hard to be sympathetic, but we've all had bosses who've dropped us in it.
That assumes she didn't know about the reported issues at the training ground, which either way does not reflect well, or did not take them into account when writing her article, which must have been written after the Luzon rumour broke and in any event wouid not have been finalised until 48 hours before the game.
Even if the sacking of Peeters came as a bolt from the blue to her, the statement on Monday and her remarks on Wednesday (live) and to the Standard (for Thursday) were equally ill advised and on Wednesday she was talking about what had happened, not being expected to predict the future.
I would agree with Rick, and was suggesting this in an earlier post about her regard and duty in respect of her other members of staff, about the comments on Peters. My take on the deadline for the programme would be that it would be prepared for press in the the week before a saturday game: covers on Tuesday, and the rest up until Thursday. Normally the editorial would be one of the last things to have been written. But KM is a busy person, so cannot be exact. Of course I have never worked on the programme, but was asked by the former COO to comment on the programme the previous season. I in fact went down to the Valley, as a designer and gave my comments, at the invitation of KM's predecessor. Of course since then, the printers, and several members of staff have left, so my information may be out of date, and practices may have changed. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. ( they normally do on here).
It must be a real juggling act between keeping us informed and happy, and still having to keep in with the boss who seems to have some very specific and individual ways of running the evil empire. Does this make Katrin the equivilent of the PR to Ming the Merciless?
I honestly don't think she deliberately misled us with her comments - she gave us the company line as last she knew it but RD IS the company, changed his mind and acted quickly and KM was simply left out of the loop and left to play catch-up. As far as I can tell her role is at the very best advisory or giving RD updates on general mood at the club and no executive power, so she was as fooled as any of us when RD yanked the rug from underneath her as he has - she probably didn't even know Luzon had the job long before any of us had it confirmed.
This does not reflect brilliantly on her and does make her seem at best perhaps naïve and at worst a stooge but I don't think there was true malice in her misdirection.
"Regardless of what AB, PA & others who seems to know FAR more than most regarding a CEO's duties & responsibilities"
Not a big deal, but I don't think I entered into that discussion of whether she is/plays the role of a CEO, at all.
Another poster whose ID I unfortunately can't remember pointed out how difficult it is to play a proper CEO role in a football club when you have an active owner. I personally never felt Peter Varney was a CEO as I would understand the role in a normal business.
Then again, Prague, I'm not entirely sure how you reach that conclusion, since you'd had nothing to do with him until after he left the club in 2012, had you?
I'd guess I do know a bit more than the average person in the street about what a chief exec at a football club does having reported direct to that post for 14 years and worked very closely with the incumbents for most of that time.
You and I have had this argument many times. It is a tricky one.
Firstly to reiterate that I believe Peter was for many years outstanding in the role he played, and that role was comparable to that which is played in most other clubs, including in the FAPL. And it usually carries the title CEO. Secondly, yes, you are in a position to evaluate each of those at Charlton who held the post, against the Varney benchmark, and I am not.
However, football is not a normal business. In a normal business, the one key result every employee is there to deliver (with varying levels of directness, obviously) is the Profit after tax. With respect, I don't recall you have ever held a management position in such a company, whereas I have all my working life, (until I set up my own tiny one). In such companies the CEO is ultimately responsible for an agreed profit target. This is not the case in a football club, because the owner may, and usually does, decide that he will allow the business to run at a loss. Inevitably this reduces the level and breadth of autonomous decision making the football "CEO" has, to a point which would be unrecognisable in a normal business as fitting with the title. The appropriate title used to be "General Manager" until the Sky money came along and inflated egos along with revenue (Not for one minute is that aimed at Peter).
If we return to Katrien, for me the key point is that Richard Murray is a typical modern public company owner who recognises the importance of delegation, and that was a reason why the Murray - Varney - Curbishley team was so bloody effective. It is apparent that RD does not work like that. I don;t want to argue with you here about the extent to which Katrien is effective in the role she has. Not least because I don't have sufficient info to make a call either way. But I would say that whoever has that role under RD may have difficulty establish exactly what decisions they can make autonomously, and that will always cause big problems.
The puzzling thing is that RD has built up and owns four different companies, which make things, and employ possibly thousands of people. There is no way he micro-manages all of them so why does he not apply the same delegative approach to his football clubs; or at least not appreciate the problems of not doing so, if the answer is that they are his hobby.
I have flagged your remark as abuse, I have been one of KM's critics but there is no reason for you to resort to such language which is easy to do through this medium.
Good for you. I apologise for offending your gentle sensibilities.
"Regardless of what AB, PA & others who seems to know FAR more than most regarding a CEO's duties & responsibilities"
Not a big deal, but I don't think I entered into that discussion of whether she is/plays the role of a CEO, at all.
Another poster whose ID I unfortunately can't remember pointed out how difficult it is to play a proper CEO role in a football club when you have an active owner. I personally never felt Peter Varney was a CEO as I would understand the role in a normal business.
Then again, Prague, I'm not entirely sure how you reach that conclusion, since you'd had nothing to do with him until after he left the club in 2012, had you?
I'd guess I do know a bit more than the average person in the street about what a chief exec at a football club does having reported direct to that post for 14 years and worked very closely with the incumbents for most of that time.
You and I have had this argument many times. It is a tricky one.
Firstly to reiterate that I believe Peter was for many years outstanding in the role he played, and that role was comparable to that which is played in most other clubs, including in the FAPL. And it usually carries the title CEO. Secondly, yes, you are in a position to evaluate each of those at Charlton who held the post, against the Varney benchmark, and I am not.
However, football is not a normal business. In a normal business, the one key result every employee is there to deliver (with varying levels of directness, obviously) is the Profit after tax. With respect, I don't recall you have ever held a management position in such a company, whereas I have all my working life, (until I set up my own tiny one). In such companies the CEO is ultimately responsible for an agreed profit target. This is not the case in a football club, because the owner may, and usually does, decide that he will allow the business to run at a loss. Inevitably this reduces the level and breadth of autonomous decision making the football "CEO" has, to a point which would be unrecognisable in a normal business as fitting with the title. The appropriate title used to be "General Manager" until the Sky money came along and inflated egos along with revenue (Not for one minute is that aimed at Peter).
If we return to Katrien, for me the key point is that Richard Murray is a typical modern public company owner who recognises the importance of delegation, and that was a reason why the Murray - Varney - Curbishley team was so bloody effective. It is apparent that RD does not work like that. I don;t want to argue with you here about the extent to which Katrien is effective in the role she has. Not least because I don't have sufficient info to make a call either way. But I would say that whoever has that role under RD may have difficulty establish exactly what decisions they can make autonomously, and that will always cause big problems.
The puzzling thing is that RD has built up and owns four different companies, which make things, and employ possibly thousands of people. There is no way he micro-manages all of them so why does he not apply the same delegative approach to his football clubs; or at least not appreciate the problems of not doing so, if the answer is that they are his hobby.
Yes, the objectives of a football club are usually different from others in the private sector and I accept that, but there are other types of chief executive too. One model I am very familiar with is the local authority one, where if you like the elected political leadership is the board of directors.
You might surmise that in local authorities the chief exec often has to cope with being overruled by members and then explain that position to the public, although he/she would command respect and understand the limits of his/her role. There are ways to do this and ways not to do it. I suggest we've seen the latter this week.
I do recall Paolo Di Canio's agent calling me to say Paolo wanted to get into football management. Very compelling argument but not sure what he thought I could do about it and a CV from a football manager who put one of his life achievements as being married for 35 years. (with 10 exclamation marks after it!)
Football has a very different business/set up to a normal business. Things obviously have changed since I was there, but footballing aspects were pretty seperate to the business side of things and I'm convinced KM was saying/doing what she thought was relevant/appropriate and then in a very short space of time, was made to look silly by doing so which was down to RD. Not uncommon at any club for the chairman to have their own views/opinions/ego that may not play into the day to day running of the business - considering they would rarely be in the 'office' of that business and therefore do the majority of their liaising with various people at various levels via telephone/email etc. ( I worked for a chairman of a football club after I worked at CAFC)
Anyway, I'm sure she's not spent 3 days talking/thinking about it like we have on here and has moved on!
Nice one, suzi.
Problem is, as I stated earlier on the FF thread, she was upset & angry at being constantly referred to as a liar via social media.
Regardless of what AB, PA & others who seems to know FAR more than most regarding a CEO's duties & responsibilities, this is a young woman trying to do her best to "please" two masters - RD and the supporters. And yes, I do believe that the latter is true , albeit that it is the most difficult of the two by far & probably beyond her personal remit.
If, as I believe, the conclusion that PA has finally reached is the correct one, rather than hoping for" a clear statement /apology/clarification of said incidents" , might I humbly suggest that with the correct facts now in our hands, an apology be made to the lady herself ?
And before someone thinks of this as a member of the FF "crawling" , I'd like to remind you that along with others including razil, I listened to Katrien's words on Thursday evening and heard the facts which you all appear to be aware of at last. She didn't duck out of that meeting as she could have done under the circumstances. She faced what were in effect some of her critics, of which I was one to some degree on Tuesday evening, to my shame.
Whatever our feelings about RD & his network, and only time will tell whether he has the recipe for success or not, surely we need to show his representative at our Club that we are not hounds baying for blood, we are better than that , but as passionate supporters, we too make mistakes.
And my final word tonight is wouldn't it have been better for AB's mole to have reported back Katrien's clear & concise explanation of what transpired on Saturday/Sunday/Monday/Tuesday rather than the puerile example of what followed ?
RESPECT, guys.
Fanny
I would not otherwise want to pursue this matter further but for your suggestion that “with the correct facts now in our hands, an apology be made to the lady herself” - i.e. that we fans owe KM an apology.
Like the overwhelming majority of fans I was not privy to “Katrien's words on Thursday evening” at the Fans Forum and almost certainly never will be – because despite the 'argy bargy' on the Fans Forum thread about minutes and how quickly they should be available, from my experience minutes of any meeting almost never detail what was said by anybody, and in this case, if, as you appear to imply, some of what she said related to Bob Peeters' apparent 'misconduct' then minutes that are going to made public (on the OS I understand) will never detail such things for obvious legal and adverse publicity reasons. I anticipate that at most the minutes will say something like 'KM made a statement about the circumstances surrounding the departure of Bob Peeters and the recruitment of the new Head Coach'.
However, as you say on the Fans Forum thread that “there was little difference between what she related last night and what we had already been made aware of”, I assume that “the correct facts” that you now believe show that “we were NOT lied to” relate to Peeter's apparent bullying and belittling of players and the complaints of the senior players about this (revealed by Reams on ITTV and supported by Prague (presumably via his known contact) and then corroborated by NWCorner)?
But the main complaints about 'lying' don't primarily relate to the probable 'misinformation' about the reason for Peeters' sacking in KM's statement on Monday – that it was related to results rather than conduct, as I think most fans would understand the need for a 'white lie' in such circumstances – but are more concerned with how the recruitment of the new Head Coach has been portrayed.
The Monday statement was headlined “Search under way for new Charlton Head Coach” and although, as some have suggested, KM may not have composed the headline, bearing in mind the importance and sensitivity of the statement she surely must have approved it? And why include the unnecessarily 'misleading' statement that “Despite recent rumours in the media we had not considered this option until after Saturday’s game” - unless it's suggested that while the ground staff knew about Peeters' apparently long-standing bad behaviour and players' unrest the 'Chief Executive' didn't?
However, surely the most blatant 'untruths' came in the press conference on Wednesday to introduce Luzon – and I don't think it's any accident that Sky chose this particular short section for their news clip:
Interviewer: Was Guy the only candidate considered for the job?
KM: "As soon as we went live with the sacking of Bob Peeters, within an hour I had 20 applications. So there were several candidates but by late evening it became clear that Guy was the favourite."
Was he the only manager you interviewed?
"No."
So between the Monday afternoon announcement of Peeter's departure and the “late evening [when] it became clear that Guy was the favourite” not only had she received '20 applications' but also interviewed one or more of them in addition to Luzon!!!
Unless you were given convincing details at the Fans Forum of these 'speed interviews' that supposedly took place late afternoon/early evening on Monday I will continue to believe that we were lied to and that (as rumoured) Luzon was the pre-planned replacement before Peeters' sacking with no serious consideration of any alternatives - and that therefore KM is not due any apology.
Good post @micks1950. An accurate summary of the issue (and what is not the issue)
I'm in the camp of those ready to cut Katrien some slack, in the belief that she may have been placed in an impossible position by her boss. And some of the vitriolic comments have been right over the top. Individuals might feel they could withdraw some comments. But a mass apology on behalf of the fan base? I don't think so. And I doubt my colleagues on the Trust board think so either. I cannot think of another business where the customers would apologise to the management.
But maybe when she's back from Watford Fanny will have time to reflect on it all too.
Imagine if KM had said...Peeter's position had been scrutinised for the some time and it was decided that unless there was considerable improvement in the following month's results his contract would be terminated, and if that proved to be the case, Luzon would be appointed manager. We felt there wasn't sufficient improvement during the timescale, and after the Brighton game Peeters was duly sacked. No other managers were considered or interviewed for the post as the decision to hire Luzon had already been made.
People would be complaining about being a feeder club,treated with contempt by the owner etc rather than simply being 'lied' to - a tenuous and pernicious accusation in itself.
I've had the impression that 'entitlement' was solely the preserve of children;it seems that grown men and women are equally as importunate.
Trouble is at the moment, the 'its all Peeters fault because he lost the dressing room' line leaves the lack of quality in the squad strategy unchallenged. In Roland's mind then his strategy can then continue. Bob Peeters definitely had to go, but Roland needs to look his strategy and the wafer thin squad he has produced.
This is the particular trouble, I have with the Charlton supporters have to put up with it line from KM. Roland does not acknowledge that her boss strategy is in anyway defect. KM says that Roland wants Charlton to be successful, (doesn't define what success would be) but does not acknowledge that there is any problems with the strategy or lack of quality in the squad.
Whoever the head coach is going to be - Luzon or an other will struggle under Roland's current terms. Especially if Roland is going to pin the blame on the person executing his strategy and not consider that his strategy is at the root of / contributing to the problem.
Imagine if KM had said...Peeter's position had been scrutinised for the some time and it was decided that unless there was considerable improvement in the following month's results his contract would be terminated, and if that proved to be the case, Luzon would be appointed manager. We felt there wasn't sufficient improvement during the timescale, and after the Brighton game Peeters was duly sacked. No other managers were considered or interviewed for the post as the decision to hire Luzon had already been made.
People would be complaining about being a feeder club,treated with contempt by the owner etc rather than simply being 'lied' to - a tenuous and pernicious accusation in itself.
I've had the impression that 'entitlement' was solely the preserve of children;it seems that grown men and women are equally as importunate.
I wouldn't be complaining as they would be telling us something.
It's not about entitlement it's about bringing your key customers with you, about creating a positive atmosphere and selling the plan to fans.
Av a look at the table RD and KM FFS U need advice b cos u ain't football people .
We have no manager knowledge and no authority out on the training ground. Proper clown dealings on the football side. Luzon took training Thursday and Friday.
Sack manager, get crap new manager, no work permit, get beat 5-0.
Av a look at the table RD and KM FFS U need advice b cos u ain't football people .
We have no manager knowledge and no authority out on the training ground. Proper clown dealings on the football side. Luzon took training Thursday and Friday.
Sack manager, get crap new manager, no work permit, get beat 5-0.
Exactly we don't av anyone at the club giving us Direction total shambles, clear out from top to bottom needed ASAP.
Imagine if KM had said...Peeter's position had been scrutinised for the some time and it was decided that unless there was considerable improvement in the following month's results his contract would be terminated, and if that proved to be the case, Luzon would be appointed manager. We felt there wasn't sufficient improvement during the timescale, and after the Brighton game Peeters was duly sacked. No other managers were considered or interviewed for the post as the decision to hire Luzon had already been made.
People would be complaining about being a feeder club,treated with contempt by the owner etc rather than simply being 'lied' to - a tenuous and pernicious accusation in itself.
I've had the impression that 'entitlement' was solely the preserve of children;it seems that grown men and women are equally as importunate.
I take it you're referring to my post – although for reasons best known to yourself you choose not to do so directly.
“tenuous and pernicious”? Care to try and substantiate that.
Comments
These guys hire and fire at will and really don't give a monkeys about any advice from the CEO or whomever, as the Yanks say, "Them that's got the gold makes the rules."
KM fully knows this and has always known it, so there is no use feeling sorry for her.
What does the fact she is a "young woman" have anything to do with it?
If she's not old or experienced enough then she should step aside. And what does gender have to do with anything?
She's had to try and pick up the pieces of this mess, and I imagine she's learned a fair bit about dealing with RD from this farrago.
Of course she takes RD's shilling so it's hard to be sympathetic, but we've all had bosses who've dropped us in it.
Even if the sacking of Peeters came as a bolt from the blue to her, the statement on Monday and her remarks on Wednesday (live) and to the Standard (for Thursday) were equally ill advised and on Wednesday she was talking about what had happened, not being expected to predict the future.
I was one of KM's critics in the past week but made it clear, as many others did, that I thought she was either lying or had been hung out to dry by RD. I accept what you say, that she was not lying, but it seems incontrovertible that the alternative explanation, that RD made her look like a mug, is true. Whether her actual duties warrant the title, she is nevertheless presented as our Chief Exec, and she has to bear some of the responsibility.
The person she should be upset with is Roland, not the fans, who were understandably upset and confused by the clear disconnect between her statements and what actually happened. Not for us to apologise. We didn't make the mistakes.
But, time for her and us to put all this behind us now.
She's had to try and pick up the pieces of this mess, and I imagine she's learned a fair bit about dealing with RD from this farrago.
Of course she takes RD's shilling so it's hard to be sympathetic, but we've all had bosses who've dropped us in it.
That assumes she didn't know about the reported issues at the training ground, which either way does not reflect well, or did not take them into account when writing her article, which must have been written after the Luzon rumour broke and in any event wouid not have been finalised until 48 hours before the game.
Even if the sacking of Peeters came as a bolt from the blue to her, the statement on Monday and her remarks on Wednesday (live) and to the Standard (for Thursday) were equally ill advised and on Wednesday she was talking about what had happened, not being expected to predict the future.
I would agree with Rick, and was suggesting this in an earlier post about her regard and duty in respect of her other members of staff, about the comments on Peters.
My take on the deadline for the programme would be that it would be prepared for press in the the week before a saturday game: covers on Tuesday, and the rest up until Thursday. Normally the editorial would be one of the last things to have been written. But KM is a busy person, so cannot be exact. Of course I have never worked on the programme, but was asked by the former COO to comment on the programme the previous season.
I in fact went down to the Valley, as a designer and gave my comments, at the invitation of KM's predecessor.
Of course since then, the printers, and several members of staff have left, so my information may be out of date, and practices may have changed. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. ( they normally do on here).
This does not reflect brilliantly on her and does make her seem at best perhaps naïve and at worst a stooge but I don't think there was true malice in her misdirection.
Firstly to reiterate that I believe Peter was for many years outstanding in the role he played, and that role was comparable to that which is played in most other clubs, including in the FAPL. And it usually carries the title CEO. Secondly, yes, you are in a position to evaluate each of those at Charlton who held the post, against the Varney benchmark, and I am not.
However, football is not a normal business. In a normal business, the one key result every employee is there to deliver (with varying levels of directness, obviously) is the Profit after tax. With respect, I don't recall you have ever held a management position in such a company, whereas I have all my working life, (until I set up my own tiny one). In such companies the CEO is ultimately responsible for an agreed profit target. This is not the case in a football club, because the owner may, and usually does, decide that he will allow the business to run at a loss. Inevitably this reduces the level and breadth of autonomous decision making the football "CEO" has, to a point which would be unrecognisable in a normal business as fitting with the title. The appropriate title used to be "General Manager" until the Sky money came along and inflated egos along with revenue (Not for one minute is that aimed at Peter).
If we return to Katrien, for me the key point is that Richard Murray is a typical modern public company owner who recognises the importance of delegation, and that was a reason why the Murray - Varney - Curbishley team was so bloody effective. It is apparent that RD does not work like that. I don;t want to argue with you here about the extent to which Katrien is effective in the role she has. Not least because I don't have sufficient info to make a call either way. But I would say that whoever has that role under RD may have difficulty establish exactly what decisions they can make autonomously, and that will always cause big problems.
The puzzling thing is that RD has built up and owns four different companies, which make things, and employ possibly thousands of people. There is no way he micro-manages all of them so why does he not apply the same delegative approach to his football clubs; or at least not appreciate the problems of not doing so, if the answer is that they are his hobby.
You might surmise that in local authorities the chief exec often has to cope with being overruled by members and then explain that position to the public, although he/she would command respect and understand the limits of his/her role. There are ways to do this and ways not to do it. I suggest we've seen the latter this week.
I would not otherwise want to pursue this matter further but for your suggestion that “with the correct facts now in our hands, an apology be made to the lady herself” - i.e. that we fans owe KM an apology.
Like the overwhelming majority of fans I was not privy to “Katrien's words on Thursday evening” at the Fans Forum and almost certainly never will be – because despite the 'argy bargy' on the Fans Forum thread about minutes and how quickly they should be available, from my experience minutes of any meeting almost never detail what was said by anybody, and in this case, if, as you appear to imply, some of what she said related to Bob Peeters' apparent 'misconduct' then minutes that are going to made public (on the OS I understand) will never detail such things for obvious legal and adverse publicity reasons. I anticipate that at most the minutes will say something like 'KM made a statement about the circumstances surrounding the departure of Bob Peeters and the recruitment of the new Head Coach'.
However, as you say on the Fans Forum thread that “there was little difference between what she related last night and what we had already been made aware of”, I assume that “the correct facts” that you now believe show that “we were NOT lied to” relate to Peeter's apparent bullying and belittling of players and the complaints of the senior players about this (revealed by Reams on ITTV and supported by Prague (presumably via his known contact) and then corroborated by NWCorner)?
But the main complaints about 'lying' don't primarily relate to the probable 'misinformation' about the reason for Peeters' sacking in KM's statement on Monday – that it was related to results rather than conduct, as I think most fans would understand the need for a 'white lie' in such circumstances – but are more concerned with how the recruitment of the new Head Coach has been portrayed.
The Monday statement was headlined “Search under way for new Charlton Head Coach” and although, as some have suggested, KM may not have composed the headline, bearing in mind the importance and sensitivity of the statement she surely must have approved it? And why include the unnecessarily 'misleading' statement that “Despite recent rumours in the media we had not considered this option until after Saturday’s game” - unless it's suggested that while the ground staff knew about Peeters' apparently long-standing bad behaviour and players' unrest the 'Chief Executive' didn't?
However, surely the most blatant 'untruths' came in the press conference on Wednesday to introduce Luzon – and I don't think it's any accident that Sky chose this particular short section for their news clip:
Interviewer: Was Guy the only candidate considered for the job?
KM: "As soon as we went live with the sacking of Bob Peeters, within an hour I had 20 applications. So there were several candidates but by late evening it became clear that Guy was the favourite."
Was he the only manager you interviewed?
"No."
So between the Monday afternoon announcement of Peeter's departure and the “late evening [when] it became clear that Guy was the favourite” not only had she received '20 applications' but also interviewed one or more of them in addition to Luzon!!!
Unless you were given convincing details at the Fans Forum of these 'speed interviews' that supposedly took place late afternoon/early evening on Monday I will continue to believe that we were lied to and that (as rumoured) Luzon was the pre-planned replacement before Peeters' sacking with no serious consideration of any alternatives - and that therefore KM is not due any apology.
I'm in the camp of those ready to cut Katrien some slack, in the belief that she may have been placed in an impossible position by her boss. And some of the vitriolic comments have been right over the top. Individuals might feel they could withdraw some comments. But a mass apology on behalf of the fan base? I don't think so. And I doubt my colleagues on the Trust board think so either. I cannot think of another business where the customers would apologise to the management.
But maybe when she's back from Watford Fanny will have time to reflect on it all too.
We felt there wasn't sufficient improvement during the timescale, and after the Brighton game Peeters was duly sacked. No other managers were considered or interviewed for the post as the decision to hire Luzon had already been made.
People would be complaining about being a feeder club,treated with contempt by the owner etc rather than simply being 'lied' to - a tenuous and pernicious accusation in itself.
I've had the impression that 'entitlement' was solely the preserve of children;it seems that grown men and women are equally as importunate.
This is the particular trouble, I have with the Charlton supporters have to put up with it line from KM. Roland does not acknowledge that her boss strategy is in anyway defect. KM says that Roland wants Charlton to be successful, (doesn't define what success would be) but does not acknowledge that there is any problems with the strategy or lack of quality in the squad.
Whoever the head coach is going to be - Luzon or an other will struggle under Roland's current terms. Especially if Roland is going to pin the blame on the person executing his strategy and not consider that his strategy is at the root of / contributing to the problem.
FFS
U need advice b cos u ain't football people .
It's not about entitlement it's about bringing your key customers with you, about creating a positive atmosphere and selling the plan to fans.
Board are wrong if they think we won't go down with same squad and Luzon .. We have no manager knowledge and no authority out on the training ground. Proper clown dealings on the football side. Luzon took training Thursday and Friday.
Sack manager, get crap new manager, no work permit, get beat 5-0.
“tenuous and pernicious”? Care to try and substantiate that.