She has absolutely no credibility left. If she had one iota of self-respect, she would tell Roland to do one and walk out. Right now, she's making Ed Balls look trustworthy.
I really like her. I've seen her down at the Valley and up at Sparrows Lane, away from the fans and media, she is very hands on and genuinely appears to always want the best for CAFC or at least what she believes is best. She is of course loyal to RD, the employer and of course she's can only say so much in public and that's going to alienate the fans every now and then. I'm sure she'll be pissed off that RD has made her look stupid over the past 7 days in his own actions but in Katrien I trust.
Yes, she's likeable, intelligent and I am sure a decent person, but she's about as much a chief executive as she is a goalkeeper.
So what are you saying Etheridge wouldn't make a decent CEO either?
He'd make a better CEO than a goalkeeper!! ...................oh bugger!
So what does everyone prefer? The old Slater and Jimenez method of communication, which is total silence, or the Roland and Katrien method, where sure, they'll talk to you but every fifth word is a lie?
It's kind of like that game where you have to choose if you want to fight ten duck sized Kermorgants or one Kermorgant sized duck.
Never met her but have heard nice things about her. I like nice people working at out Club.
But she has been made to look silly in the last week, exposing just how unconnected the football side is to the rest of the club. For a CEO to be tripped up so publicly, twice in the matter of days, is crazy.
She also must have approved the Crossbars disaster, the complex price structure, and a ST package that has led to a shortfall in income that will be difficult to get back (its one thing offering someone a ST 200 cheaper one year, try putting it up 200 after a disappointing season).
I'm disappointed as I naively saw her as a positve of this network regime which I detest. Now sadly starting to question the effectiveness.
I really like her. I've seen her down at the Valley and up at Sparrows Lane, away from the fans and media, she is very hands on and genuinely appears to always want the best for CAFC or at least what she believes is best. She is of course loyal to RD, the employer and of course she's can only say so much in public and that's going to alienate the fans every now and then. I'm sure she'll be pissed off that RD has made her look stupid over the past 7 days in his own actions but in Katrien I trust.
Yes, she's likeable, intelligent and I am sure a decent person, but she's about as much a chief executive as she is a goalkeeper.
I really like her. I've seen her down at the Valley and up at Sparrows Lane, away from the fans and media, she is very hands on and genuinely appears to always want the best for CAFC or at least what she believes is best. She is of course loyal to RD, the employer and of course she's can only say so much in public and that's going to alienate the fans every now and then. I'm sure she'll be pissed off that RD has made her look stupid over the past 7 days in his own actions but in Katrien I trust.
Yes, she's likeable, intelligent and I am sure a decent person, but she's about as much a chief executive as she is a goalkeeper.
..and how does that compare to the last lot Rick?
The last lot had no interest in running the business whatsoever. They were content to leave it to Kavanagh and Varney, until the money ran out, after which they installed Prothero, who was rarely there either. So staff got on with the job. People often misunderstand the role of non-exec directors. I never met Jimenez at all until I forced him to hear my appeal and that was because he almost never came to The Valley.
While I had much more to do with Richard Murray over the years, I saw a lot less of him when I was on the management team than previously as a reporter and secretary of the supporters' club, etc - even when I was in charge of comms 1998-2003. That's because it was the chief exec's role to run the business day to day. It's not a criticism - quite the reverse.
The issue now is that nearly all the accumulated internal knowledge of the club has left the building - mainly due to the previous regime, although it is still continuing. So now you have new or previously quite junior people in charge on the one hand and an inexperienced chief executive who isn't able to oversee them fully on the other. It is a problematic combination, in my view.
I do think KM has been somewhat thrown to the lions this week, totally undermined by RD. Certainly a light has been thrown onto what RD really means by his clubs having their own autonomy - that is, they are free only to agree with him.
Personally I think the other stuff is unnecessary. We were all junior staff once. The important thing from a staff focus is whether the jobs are now being done as they have been asked to do them. If the remit is incomplete, that's for CEO/COOs - in reality KM - to address.
Of course it is regretful when knowledge is lost, but it means little more than the replacements having to learn it - and under a new regime things will be done differently anyway. From what you're saying, they are considerably more active in managing the business today than previously, so it may actually be no bad thing. Let's be honest, we've hardly had a model internal operation even in the Premier League years. People got on with it, the fans accepted the limitations because - well - we were all in it together. Things move on, people move on.
How is she a liar? Can somebody please provide evidence.
In her statement on Monday, she said the following:
1. The sacking of Peeters was 'not considered' until after the Brighton game 2. That there would be a full search for a new manager 3. That the new managerial appointment would be the best for the club in the long term
The first two points are complete bullsh*t.
She says in the same statement that a reason for Peeter's sacking was that we have only won once in 12 games... so how is it possible that it wasn't even considered until Saturday evening? Also, the full 'search' for the new manager consisted of promptly hiring someone the next day within the network, who we had all heard rumours about coming in, several weeks ago.
Only time will tell if the final point is true, however an 18 month contract hardly suggests 'long term' to me! It seems like Luzon was appointed due to him being cheap, available, within Roland's network, and a 'Yes Man'. Not because he was the best person for the job.
I'm not saying I completely disagree with Luzon taking over, but the way in which we've been fed a load of crap around the recruitment process is insulting, and almost comical. All we ask is that any search for our new managerial appointment is not rushed, but is comprehensive, and ultimately that any appointment made is in the best interests of the club.
How is she a liar? Can somebody please provide evidence.
In her statement on Monday, she said the following:
1. The sacking of Peeters was 'not considered' until after the Brighton game 2. That there would be a full search for a new manager 3. That the new managerial appointment would be the best for the club in the long term
The first two points are complete bullsh*t.
She says in the same statement that a reason for Peeter's sacking was that we have only won once in 12 games... so how is it possible that it wasn't even considered until Saturday evening? Also, the full 'search' for the new manager consisted of promptly hiring someone the next day within the network, who we had all heard rumours about coming in, several weeks ago.
Only time will tell if the final point is true, however an 18 month contract hardly suggests 'long term' to me! It seems like Luzon was appointed due to him being cheap, available, within Roland's network, and a 'Yes Man'. Not because he was the best person for the job.
I'm not saying I completely disagree with Luzon taking over, but the way in which we've been fed a load of crap around the recruitment process is insulting, and almost comical. All we ask is that any search for our new managerial appointment is not rushed, comprehensive, and ultimately any appointment made is in the best interests of the club.
I think she is doing a great job, she was polite and understanding when approached on the way home from brammel lane,
I'd love to know how far some of you got in the field you chose to work in to call her out-of depth or a puppet
You need loyal leaders in your business people you trust to do what's you want even if it's not what they want,
Ultimately RD calls the shots it's his cash his right
We have been lied too by
CEO chairman and owner more often than you may realize in the last twenty years She gets my vote as asset to our business /club
So she's an asset to Charlton because she's happy to pass on lies and bad news, presumably for a very handsome wage? Stopping for the odd photo or chat shouldn't make someone immune to criticism either.
If she didn't know she was lying on both Saturday and Monday then she's stupid and/or naive. However, I don't think that's the case.
I really like her. I've seen her down at the Valley and up at Sparrows Lane, away from the fans and media, she is very hands on and genuinely appears to always want the best for CAFC or at least what she believes is best. She is of course loyal to RD, the employer and of course she's can only say so much in public and that's going to alienate the fans every now and then. I'm sure she'll be pissed off that RD has made her look stupid over the past 7 days in his own actions but in Katrien I trust.
Yes, she's likeable, intelligent and I am sure a decent person, but she's about as much a chief executive as she is a goalkeeper.
..and how does that compare to the last lot Rick?
The last lot had no interest in running the business whatsoever. They were content to leave it to Kavanagh and Varney, until the money ran out, after which they installed Prothero, who was rarely there either. So staff got on with the job. People often misunderstand the role of non-exec directors. I never met Jimenez at all until I forced him to hear my appeal and that was because he almost never came to The Valley.
While I had much more to do with Richard Murray over the years, I saw a lot less of him when I was on the management team than previously as a reporter and secretary of the supporters' club, etc - even when I was in charge of comms 1998-2003. That's because it was the chief exec's role to run the business day to day. It's not a criticism - quite the reverse.
The issue now is that nearly all the accumulated internal knowledge of the club has left the building - mainly due to the previous regime, although it is still continuing. So now you have new or previously quite junior people in charge on the one hand and an inexperienced chief executive who isn't able to oversee them fully on the other. It is a problematic combination, in my view.
I do think KM has been somewhat thrown to the lions this week, totally undermined by RD. Certainly a light has been thrown onto what RD really means by his clubs having their own autonomy - that is, they are free only to agree with him.
Personally I think the other stuff is unnecessary. We were all junior staff once. The important thing from a staff focus is whether the jobs are now being done as they have been asked to do them. If the remit is incomplete, that's for CEO/COOs - in reality KM - to address.
Of course it is regretful when knowledge is lost, but it means little more than the replacements having to learn it - and under a new regime things will be done differently anyway. From what you're saying, they are considerably more active in managing the business today than previously, so it may actually be no bad thing. Let's be honest, we've hardly had a model internal operation even in the Premier League years. People got on with it, the fans accepted the limitations because - well - we were all in it together. Things move on, people move on.
It's off the point, but you're misunderstanding what I'm saying and I think you're largely wrong about the PL years - although I would, wouldn't I?
There was intelligent structured management from the board prior to 2012, but led by the chief executive (except Waggott!) day to day, not by the owner. That is the difference. In theory the owner could be the chief exec, but not, I suggest, from Belgium.
Over 2012-14 the tier of management below the chief exec has largely been taken out, leaving the chief exec to manage a wider group operating at a lower level. At the same time the chief exec is less experienced and has less discretion because she is following orders (from someone based in Belgium) to an extent that her predecessors certainly weren't. And the staff under her also know less about the club and its fans.
Coupled with other staff reductions, it means you have 1) people being overloaded with tasks, 2) managers who feel unsupported and 3) people put in roles they are not equipped to fulfil. Consequently more staff are leaving, and notably without replacement jobs, because the set-up is not tenable.
That is KM's responsibility to address if she is indeed a chief executive, although to be clear I don't blame her for it. There have been a number of (unannounced) new appointments so we'll see where that takes us, but at present the wheels are coming off.
How is she a liar? Can somebody please provide evidence.
In her statement on Monday, she said the following:
1. The sacking of Peeters was 'not considered' until after the Brighton game 2. That there would be a full search for a new manager 3. That the new managerial appointment would be the best for the club in the long term
The first two points are complete bullsh*t.
She says in the same statement that a reason for Peeter's sacking was that we have only won once in 12 games... so how is it possible that it wasn't even considered until Saturday evening? Also, the full 'search' for the new manager consisted of promptly hiring someone the next day within the network, who we had all heard rumours about coming in, several weeks ago.
Only time will tell if the final point is true, however an 18 month contract hardly suggests 'long term' to me! It seems like Luzon was appointed due to him being cheap, available, within Roland's network, and a 'Yes Man'. Not because he was the best person for the job.
I'm not saying I completely disagree with Luzon taking over, but the way in which we've been fed a load of crap around the recruitment process is insulting, and almost comical. All we ask is that any search for our new managerial appointment is not rushed, comprehensive, and ultimately any appointment made is in the best interests of the club.
The truth of the matter is nobody knows the relationship between RD and KM. RD obviously holds the power, and be amazed if it was any different in any other club. There is no evidence that 1. wasn't true. They, like me, may have been having serious doubts about him but Saturday and the obvious lack of team spirit/fall out was the final straw which decided them to take action immediately. IMHO I applaud this. It also echos what was said about Parkinson, when one game (the Swindon game I think it was, was the final straw after statements had been made that he would be staying (including by Peter Varney, I think, who is rightly held as honourable) A Board should always have a back up plan. Any business should have a plan of what it might do if key people suddenly became unable to do their job, whether it be sacking, resignation or being run over a bus. It may not have been a wise thing to say but it could depend on your definition of "full". I am sure 3 is true. They believe it - only time will tell whether it is true. It is important for the CEO to be in full alignment with the views of the investors and I personally have no problem with KM.
If I was Meire, I'd be wanting a long chat with Roly to discover what me role was, seeing as she has been made to look very foolish twice in a couple of days. Especially as Murray is still in the house and I'd have thought that when bollox was being trotted out his name should have been on it, why else is he there?
I have never met KM but from her CV it is obvious that she is an ambitious, intelligent and articulate person who has had a working relationship with RD over a period of time. I therefore cannot accept that has has been excluded from RD's plans. From her programme notes and recent statements it is obvious that has has lied to the supporters with regard to the departure of BP and the recruitment of GL. We have to remember that her training is in the law and therefore she should be articulate and I suggest she knows the effects of what she has said and written. I am sure that us supporters have been lied to before by the management of the club but never in such a blatant manner and I for one will no longer give them my trust or support. That does not mean that I will not support the team or the manager, of course I will, but as for RD, KM and their ilk - no thanks.
Up until last week I had K.M down as a very assuring character and one you'd want involved with the running of Charlton.
However, the tosh she came out with re: finding the right manager for the long run, and how bob wasn't considered to be sacked until after the game has left me with a completely different opinion of her. She is not a liar but she must think we are as simple as that lot who support the team from Bermondsey!
I really like her. I've seen her down at the Valley and up at Sparrows Lane, away from the fans and media, she is very hands on and genuinely appears to always want the best for CAFC or at least what she believes is best. She is of course loyal to RD, the employer and of course she's can only say so much in public and that's going to alienate the fans every now and then. I'm sure she'll be pissed off that RD has made her look stupid over the past 7 days in his own actions but in Katrien I trust.
Yes, she's likeable, intelligent and I am sure a decent person, but she's about as much a chief executive as she is a goalkeeper.
The role of Chief Exec of a subsidiary company is quite different to the equivalent in an independent company. More like a COO. I agree with NLA that she has appeared to be an asset. Rather than damning with faint praise it'd be more constructive to learn specifically what she is not doing that you think a Chief Exec should be. Would also be interested in whether you think it's her shortcoming, or the scope of the role (if that's a question you can speculate on).
If I was Meire, I'd be wanting a long chat with Roly to discover what me role was, seeing as she has been made to look very foolish twice in a couple of days. Especially as Murray is still in the house and I'd have thought that when bollox was being trotted out his name should have been on it, why else is he there?
Has he made her look foolish or did she know exactly what she was doing?
I really like her. I've seen her down at the Valley and up at Sparrows Lane, away from the fans and media, she is very hands on and genuinely appears to always want the best for CAFC or at least what she believes is best. She is of course loyal to RD, the employer and of course she's can only say so much in public and that's going to alienate the fans every now and then. I'm sure she'll be pissed off that RD has made her look stupid over the past 7 days in his own actions but in Katrien I trust.
Yes, she's likeable, intelligent and I am sure a decent person, but she's about as much a chief executive as she is a goalkeeper.
The role of Chief Exec of a subsidiary company is quite different to the equivalent in an independent company. More like a COO. I agree with NLA that she has appeared to be an asset. Rather than damning with faint praise it'd be more constructive to learn specifically what she is not doing that you think a Chief Exec should be. Would also be interested in whether you think it's her shortcoming, or the scope of the role (if that's a question you can speculate on).
I think it is in the Belgians' interest to learn as much about the business and the supporters as possible and I'd expect KM to lead on that. That doesn't mean that the club has to be run in the future as it has in the past or by the same people. However, particularly given the exodus of experienced managers, you'd think they'd want to understand what has worked in the past and what hasn't - or at least consider and discard what they are told.
Numerous experienced people - past directors, former chief executives and other ex-staff - have all offered to sit down and talk to her on or off the record or to be available as required for the benefit of the club. They have all been rebuffed.
For example, I offered to write her a detailed paper explaining the rationale for Valley Express (on a voluntary basis!), because of the concerns being expressed to me by the volunteers who deliver it, which she could have discarded as she saw fit, but it would at least have been information available to her. She declined that.
I'd expect her to lead the organisation publicly and explain why the club is doing things and what it hopes to achieve by them. I'd expect her to communicate the owner's strategic vision and endeavour to get supporters to buy into a convincing narrative about it, to secure their backing, enthusiasm and participation.
I'd expect her to exercise a duty of care towards the staff under her, in particular ensuring they are adequately resourced to fulfil their duties and that they are not promoted into roles for which they are not equipped in order to save money. She ought to be engaging with managers more than she appears to be able in order to understand what is happening on the ground. She ought to be intervening much earlier when errors have obviously been made, for example it was not until August that any attempt was made to rectify the loss of Crossbars income / membership and even now it has not been fully redressed.
My working assumption is that she is prevented from doing all these things in part because she is not making many of the decisions and cannot be certain what the strategy and decision will be from day to day. I think she is unwilling to confer with Peter Varney specifically because she knows it will aggravate Richard Murray, yet Varney is the single most useful person she could possibly learn from, because he knows the business inside out, has all the contacts, including external funders, and remains passionate about Charlton.
Airman's piece is cool and thoughtful. Now I expect the snide remarks to roll his way about being bitter etc. If you are inclined to the snide side it would be a starting point to be specific about something written in the post above.
I think we all knew Bob was walking a tightrope leading up to the Brighton game, i didn't buy the programme (and stopped buying them a while back) so i can't comment on what was written by Katrien, but i'm wondering if she was trying to take flak away from the players and management team, but its ended up blowing up in her face and making her look quite silly, and distrustful.
Whats done is done , and as someone once said , we need to move on, i know people will think if you can't trust people over the simple stuff , what can you trust them on?
I'm waiting to see what affect Guy will have on the 1st team , i for one don't want to go back to League 1 , i hope Guy will be supported in the transfer window, and good and well thought through decisions are made on transfer decisions incoming and out.
I think the statements were more economical with the truth than outright lies, and as a lawyer she will know the difference... There are Chief Execs and Chief Execs, and Katrien to me was always a very 'junior' one simply down to her age and lack of experience. This isn't a situation she's dealt with before, and yes she has probably been a bit out of her depth this week, but it's a learning process, and whoever was in that chair would have been in a no win situation this week.
I really like her. I've seen her down at the Valley and up at Sparrows Lane, away from the fans and media, she is very hands on and genuinely appears to always want the best for CAFC or at least what she believes is best. She is of course loyal to RD, the employer and of course she's can only say so much in public and that's going to alienate the fans every now and then. I'm sure she'll be pissed off that RD has made her look stupid over the past 7 days in his own actions but in Katrien I trust.
Yes, she's likeable, intelligent and I am sure a decent person, but she's about as much a chief executive as she is a goalkeeper.
..and how does that compare to the last lot Rick?
The last lot had no interest in running the business whatsoever. They were content to leave it to Kavanagh and Varney, until the money ran out, after which they installed Prothero, who was rarely there either. So staff got on with the job. People often misunderstand the role of non-exec directors. I never met Jimenez at all until I forced him to hear my appeal and that was because he almost never came to The Valley.
While I had much more to do with Richard Murray over the years, I saw a lot less of him when I was on the management team than previously as a reporter and secretary of the supporters' club, etc - even when I was in charge of comms 1998-2003. That's because it was the chief exec's role to run the business day to day. It's not a criticism - quite the reverse.
The issue now is that nearly all the accumulated internal knowledge of the club has left the building - mainly due to the previous regime, although it is still continuing. So now you have new or previously quite junior people in charge on the one hand and an inexperienced chief executive who isn't able to oversee them fully on the other. It is a problematic combination, in my view.
I do think KM has been somewhat thrown to the lions this week, totally undermined by RD. Certainly a light has been thrown onto what RD really means by his clubs having their own autonomy - that is, they are free only to agree with him.
Personally I think the other stuff is unnecessary. We were all junior staff once. The important thing from a staff focus is whether the jobs are now being done as they have been asked to do them. If the remit is incomplete, that's for CEO/COOs - in reality KM - to address.
Of course it is regretful when knowledge is lost, but it means little more than the replacements having to learn it - and under a new regime things will be done differently anyway. From what you're saying, they are considerably more active in managing the business today than previously, so it may actually be no bad thing. Let's be honest, we've hardly had a model internal operation even in the Premier League years. People got on with it, the fans accepted the limitations because - well - we were all in it together. Things move on, people move on.
It's off the point, but you're misunderstanding what I'm saying and I think you're largely wrong about the PL years - although I would, wouldn't I?
There was intelligent structured management from the board prior to 2012, but led by the chief executive (except Waggott!) day to day, not by the owner. That is the difference. In theory the owner could be the chief exec, but not, I suggest, from Belgium.
Over 2012-14 the tier of management below the chief exec has largely been taken out, leaving the chief exec to manage a wider group operating at a lower level. At the same time the chief exec is less experienced and has less discretion because she is following orders (from someone based in Belgium) to an extent that her predecessors certainly weren't. And the staff under her also know less about the club and its fans.
Coupled with other staff reductions, it means you have 1) people being overloaded with tasks, 2) managers who feel unsupported and 3) people put in roles they are not equipped to fulfil. Consequently more staff are leaving, and notably without replacement jobs, because the set-up is not tenable.
That is KM's responsibility to address if she is indeed a chief executive, although to be clear I don't blame her for it. There have been a number of (unannounced) new appointments so we'll see where that takes us, but at present the wheels are coming off.
To be honest it was the way you worded it rather than the underlying thought with which I took issue, and presumably you're not as in the loop regarding everyday operations as you once were (i.e. you have to rely on third party reports rather than being there yourself). Not a criticism but an observation.
Notwithstanding in my view the main difference between the clubs 'now' and 'then' was the outstanding ability of Peter Varney in the CEO role. Perhaps it's no less reasonable to compare KM to him than it was to compare Waggott, Kavanagh or Prothero, but my caution is that we know less about the strategy and its execution than we have done previously, and certainly we're not privy to her personal objectives. The problem I think you have in the opinion you've expressed is that it's stated without that necessary context, one with which previously you were intimate.
I would imagine KM chooses her words very carefully - lawyers tend to - which does somewhat lend the impression that she was not the decision maker and perhaps not fully in the loop regarding the events of the last few days. Personally I think she is way too talented to be sidelined and undermined in this way, even if she is building her experience.
From what i can gather the program note were probably written in all good faith and whilst events proved to be embarrassing, I have no real problems with them, sometimes events create their own momentum and a mild snow flurry turns into an avalanche. What seems to be unfathomable is the following statements, which were contradictory on a daily basis.
Either she lied and I don't think that she is stupid enough to do that or she was let down enourmously by RD. Either way the situation puts her in poor light.
She is certainly not a CEO, more a managing director, a subtle difference but a very clear one.
I can understand her not taking up Airman Browns or Varnets offer, I am sure that they have the mark of 3 6's from the clubs point of view (I am NOT suggesting either AB or PV did have an ulterior motive) however it illustrates her naivety (and the naivety of lawyers when it comes to business) and stubbornness of RD. She should have accepted it and milked them both for whatever information she could get, before (if she wanted) discarding them.
Comments
Right now, she's making Ed Balls look trustworthy.
It's kind of like that game where you have to choose if you want to fight ten duck sized Kermorgants or one Kermorgant sized duck.
But she has been made to look silly in the last week, exposing just how unconnected the football side is to the rest of the club. For a CEO to be tripped up so publicly, twice in the matter of days, is crazy.
She also must have approved the Crossbars disaster, the complex price structure, and a ST package that has led to a shortfall in income that will be difficult to get back (its one thing offering someone a ST 200 cheaper one year, try putting it up 200 after a disappointing season).
I'm disappointed as I naively saw her as a positve of this network regime which I detest. Now sadly starting to question the effectiveness.
Just asking...
Personally I think the other stuff is unnecessary. We were all junior staff once. The important thing from a staff focus is whether the jobs are now being done as they have been asked to do them. If the remit is incomplete, that's for CEO/COOs - in reality KM - to address.
Of course it is regretful when knowledge is lost, but it means little more than the replacements having to learn it - and under a new regime things will be done differently anyway. From what you're saying, they are considerably more active in managing the business today than previously, so it may actually be no bad thing. Let's be honest, we've hardly had a model internal operation even in the Premier League years. People got on with it, the fans accepted the limitations because - well - we were all in it together. Things move on, people move on.
1. The sacking of Peeters was 'not considered' until after the Brighton game
2. That there would be a full search for a new manager
3. That the new managerial appointment would be the best for the club in the long term
The first two points are complete bullsh*t.
She says in the same statement that a reason for Peeter's sacking was that we have only won once in 12 games... so how is it possible that it wasn't even considered until Saturday evening?
Also, the full 'search' for the new manager consisted of promptly hiring someone the next day within the network, who we had all heard rumours about coming in, several weeks ago.
Only time will tell if the final point is true, however an 18 month contract hardly suggests 'long term' to me! It seems like Luzon was appointed due to him being cheap, available, within Roland's network, and a 'Yes Man'. Not because he was the best person for the job.
I'm not saying I completely disagree with Luzon taking over, but the way in which we've been fed a load of crap around the recruitment process is insulting, and almost comical. All we ask is that any search for our new managerial appointment is not rushed, but is comprehensive, and ultimately that any appointment made is in the best interests of the club.
If she didn't know she was lying on both Saturday and Monday then she's stupid and/or naive. However, I don't think that's the case.
There was intelligent structured management from the board prior to 2012, but led by the chief executive (except Waggott!) day to day, not by the owner. That is the difference. In theory the owner could be the chief exec, but not, I suggest, from Belgium.
Over 2012-14 the tier of management below the chief exec has largely been taken out, leaving the chief exec to manage a wider group operating at a lower level. At the same time the chief exec is less experienced and has less discretion because she is following orders (from someone based in Belgium) to an extent that her predecessors certainly weren't. And the staff under her also know less about the club and its fans.
Coupled with other staff reductions, it means you have 1) people being overloaded with tasks, 2) managers who feel unsupported and 3) people put in roles they are not equipped to fulfil. Consequently more staff are leaving, and notably without replacement jobs, because the set-up is not tenable.
That is KM's responsibility to address if she is indeed a chief executive, although to be clear I don't blame her for it. There have been a number of (unannounced) new appointments so we'll see where that takes us, but at present the wheels are coming off.
There is no evidence that 1. wasn't true. They, like me, may have been having serious doubts about him but Saturday and the obvious lack of team spirit/fall out was the final straw which decided them to take action immediately. IMHO I applaud this. It also echos what was said about Parkinson, when one game (the Swindon game I think it was, was the final straw after statements had been made that he would be staying (including by Peter Varney, I think, who is rightly held as honourable)
A Board should always have a back up plan. Any business should have a plan of what it might do if key people suddenly became unable to do their job, whether it be sacking, resignation or being run over a bus. It may not have been a wise thing to say but it could depend on your definition of "full".
I am sure 3 is true. They believe it - only time will tell whether it is true.
It is important for the CEO to be in full alignment with the views of the investors and I personally have no problem with KM.
I am sure that us supporters have been lied to before by the management of the club but never in such a blatant manner and I for one will no longer give them my trust or support. That does not mean that I will not support the team or the manager, of course I will, but as for RD, KM and their ilk - no thanks.
However, the tosh she came out with re: finding the right manager for the long run, and how bob wasn't considered to be sacked until after the game has left me with a completely different opinion of her.
She is not a liar but she must think we are as simple as that lot who support the team from Bermondsey!
Numerous experienced people - past directors, former chief executives and other ex-staff - have all offered to sit down and talk to her on or off the record or to be available as required for the benefit of the club. They have all been rebuffed.
For example, I offered to write her a detailed paper explaining the rationale for Valley Express (on a voluntary basis!), because of the concerns being expressed to me by the volunteers who deliver it, which she could have discarded as she saw fit, but it would at least have been information available to her. She declined that.
I'd expect her to lead the organisation publicly and explain why the club is doing things and what it hopes to achieve by them. I'd expect her to communicate the owner's strategic vision and endeavour to get supporters to buy into a convincing narrative about it, to secure their backing, enthusiasm and participation.
I'd expect her to exercise a duty of care towards the staff under her, in particular ensuring they are adequately resourced to fulfil their duties and that they are not promoted into roles for which they are not equipped in order to save money. She ought to be engaging with managers more than she appears to be able in order to understand what is happening on the ground. She ought to be intervening much earlier when errors have obviously been made, for example it was not until August that any attempt was made to rectify the loss of Crossbars income / membership and even now it has not been fully redressed.
My working assumption is that she is prevented from doing all these things in part because she is not making many of the decisions and cannot be certain what the strategy and decision will be from day to day. I think she is unwilling to confer with Peter Varney specifically because she knows it will aggravate Richard Murray, yet Varney is the single most useful person she could possibly learn from, because he knows the business inside out, has all the contacts, including external funders, and remains passionate about Charlton.
Now I expect the snide remarks to roll his way about being bitter etc.
If you are inclined to the snide side it would be a starting point to be specific about something written in the post above.
Whats done is done , and as someone once said , we need to move on, i know people will think if you can't trust people over the simple stuff , what can you trust them on?
I'm waiting to see what affect Guy will have on the 1st team , i for one don't want to go back to League 1 , i hope Guy will be supported in the transfer window, and good and well thought through decisions are made on transfer decisions incoming and out.
There are Chief Execs and Chief Execs, and Katrien to me was always a very 'junior' one simply down to her age and lack of experience. This isn't a situation she's dealt with before, and yes she has probably been a bit out of her depth this week, but it's a learning process, and whoever was in that chair would have been in a no win situation this week.
Notwithstanding in my view the main difference between the clubs 'now' and 'then' was the outstanding ability of Peter Varney in the CEO role. Perhaps it's no less reasonable to compare KM to him than it was to compare Waggott, Kavanagh or Prothero, but my caution is that we know less about the strategy and its execution than we have done previously, and certainly we're not privy to her personal objectives. The problem I think you have in the opinion you've expressed is that it's stated without that necessary context, one with which previously you were intimate.
I would imagine KM chooses her words very carefully - lawyers tend to - which does somewhat lend the impression that she was not the decision maker and perhaps not fully in the loop regarding the events of the last few days. Personally I think she is way too talented to be sidelined and undermined in this way, even if she is building her experience.
Either she lied and I don't think that she is stupid enough to do that or she was let down enourmously by RD. Either way the situation puts her in poor light.
She is certainly not a CEO, more a managing director, a subtle difference but a very clear one.
I can understand her not taking up Airman Browns or Varnets offer, I am sure that they have the mark of 3 6's from the clubs point of view (I am NOT suggesting either AB or PV did have an ulterior motive) however it illustrates her naivety (and the naivety of lawyers when it comes to business) and stubbornness of RD. She should have accepted it and milked them both for whatever information she could get, before (if she wanted) discarding them.