After Peeters and the other two went, I would assume KM spoke with Damian Matthew and Ben Roberts, something along the lines of "you will be in charge for the Watford game (and any others) until a new man is appointed" Is she counting this as an "interview"? RD then appointed Luzon, sooner than she expected
Well AB of course you may have the correct insight but frankly how can you be so certain?
RD may just have lucked out, this time. The underlying structure and project may be flawed but so much of it is down to variables that I don't think I could look at what is being attempted and be as certain as you.
The various boards and management's at the Valley have made plenty of poor decisions.
I wouldn't have done a deal with New England to see our best striker loaned there with 10 games to go. The decision was made to align with them to try to generate some cash.
I would never have appointed Lennie in a million years. The club just lucked out at the time because he was kind of the last man standing.
I would never of gone for "joint coaches/managers"
I fancied Gritty over Curbs
I thought that Dowie was a good appointment and the Pardont was a poor one.
I disliked Parky, but I welcomed CP.
I would never have sold Andy Reid. I would never have signed Andy Jones.
These were all either decisions made out of necessity or because somebody had a plan.
What is clear is that over the years that I have supported our club, there has rarely if ever been a time when the club had the finances it needed or the playing resources I would have liked it to have in an ideal world. Even through the last premier league excursion, the club had no real plan for the post Curbs era. They missed out on Billy Davis and made the disastrous decision to appoint Dowie. The rest is history.
How do we know that this new bloke won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear in the same way that for example Lennie, Curbs (and Gritty) did? Neither of these regimes started with any money, very thin squads and club in crisis.
My point is that whilst the structure and the resources may itself be flawed, it takes more than that to guarantee failure or scupper success.
She could have looked at the moaning on here, delayed naming Luzon until Thursday or Friday,claimed she had interviewed 20 candidates - would that have placated the moaners?
No because Sky Sports were all over Luzon going to the club for talks. If another 19 were not seen going in or out then it would be obvious it's another lie.
Why would the Valley be the only place on earth that interviews would take place. In fact, some people would probably prefer to be interviewed away from the glare of publicity.
So up to 20 people would choose not to be interviewed at the valley you think? John, wake up, stop kidding yourself.
She could have looked at the moaning on here, delayed naming Luzon until Thursday or Friday,claimed she had interviewed 20 candidates - would that have placated the moaners?
No because Sky Sports were all over Luzon going to the club for talks. If another 19 were not seen going in or out then it would be obvious it's another lie.
Why would the Valley be the only place on earth that interviews would take place. In fact, some people would probably prefer to be interviewed away from the glare of publicity.
I think you're right actually John. Based on what Katrien said in yesterday's press conference, it seems that most of the interviews were held on Sunday evening at Katrien's apartment, during the gap between the end of Countryfile and the start of Call The Midwife.
I think it's pretty clear that although she's been around the club and been at games with fans and claims to be a real fan of STTV, she like Roland fundamentally just doesn't get it ... summed up beautifully once she was questioned towards the Roland's absence at games by confirming that she "didn't want to waste his time" watching 90mins of football
How are these people ever going to grasp even the slightest notion of how football is more than just numbers on a spreadsheet when the idea of watching the team is an inconvenience accepted by someone who day to day runs the club!
She could have looked at the moaning on here, delayed naming Luzon until Thursday or Friday,claimed she had interviewed 20 candidates - would that have placated the moaners?
No because Sky Sports were all over Luzon going to the club for talks. If another 19 were not seen going in or out then it would be obvious it's another lie.
Why would the Valley be the only place on earth that interviews would take place. In fact, some people would probably prefer to be interviewed away from the glare of publicity.
I think you're right actually John. Based on what Katrien said in yesterday's press conference, it seems that most of the interviews were held on Sunday evening at Katrien's apartment, during the gap between the end of Countryfile and the start of Call The Midwife.
You are blatantly telling porkies !! Call the Midwife doesn't start until this Sunday. :-)
She could have looked at the moaning on here, delayed naming Luzon until Thursday or Friday,claimed she had interviewed 20 candidates - would that have placated the moaners?
No because Sky Sports were all over Luzon going to the club for talks. If another 19 were not seen going in or out then it would be obvious it's another lie.
Why would the Valley be the only place on earth that interviews would take place. In fact, some people would probably prefer to be interviewed away from the glare of publicity.
I think you're right actually John. Based on what Katrien said in yesterday's press conference, it seems that most of the interviews were held on Sunday evening at Katrien's apartment, during the gap between the end of Countryfile and the start of Call The Midwife.
You are blatantly telling porkies !! Call the Midwife doesn't start until this Sunday. :-)
Well AB of course you may have the correct insight but frankly how can you be so certain?
RD may just have lucked out, this time. The underlying structure and project may be flawed but so much of it is down to variables that I don't think I could look at what is being attempted and be as certain as you.
The various boards and management's at the Valley have made plenty of poor decisions.
I wouldn't have done a deal with New England to see our best striker loaned there with 10 games to go. The decision was made to align with them to try to generate some cash.
I would never have appointed Lennie in a million years. The club just lucked out at the time because he was kind of the last man standing.
I would never of gone for "joint coaches/managers"
I fancied Gritty over Curbs
I thought that Dowie was a good appointment and the Pardont was a poor one.
I disliked Parky, but I welcomed CP.
I would never have sold Andy Reid. I would never have signed Andy Jones.
These were all either decisions made out of necessity or because somebody had a plan.
What is clear is that over the years that I have supported our club, there has rarely if ever been a time when the club had the finances it needed or the playing resources I would have liked it to have in an ideal world. Even through the last premier league excursion, the club had no real plan for the post Curbs era. They missed out on Billy Davis and made the disastrous decision to appoint Dowie. The rest is history.
How do we know that this new bloke won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear in the same way that for example Lennie, Curbs (and Gritty) did? Neither of these regimes started with any money, very thin squads and club in crisis.
My point is that whilst the structure and the resources may itself be flawed, it takes more than that to guarantee failure or scupper success.
But all of those started from a different position in that they identified the players and subject to resources being available made the decision to sign them - and none of them had to consider who the owner wanted in the team and face dismissal if they didn't accommodate those wishes. It's a fundamental difference.
Well AB of course you may have the correct insight but frankly how can you be so certain?
RD may just have lucked out, this time. The underlying structure and project may be flawed but so much of it is down to variables that I don't think I could look at what is being attempted and be as certain as you.
The various boards and management's at the Valley have made plenty of poor decisions.
I wouldn't have done a deal with New England to see our best striker loaned there with 10 games to go. The decision was made to align with them to try to generate some cash.
I would never have appointed Lennie in a million years. The club just lucked out at the time because he was kind of the last man standing.
I would never of gone for "joint coaches/managers"
I fancied Gritty over Curbs
I thought that Dowie was a good appointment and the Pardont was a poor one.
I disliked Parky, but I welcomed CP.
I would never have sold Andy Reid. I would never have signed Andy Jones.
These were all either decisions made out of necessity or because somebody had a plan.
What is clear is that over the years that I have supported our club, there has rarely if ever been a time when the club had the finances it needed or the playing resources I would have liked it to have in an ideal world. Even through the last premier league excursion, the club had no real plan for the post Curbs era. They missed out on Billy Davis and made the disastrous decision to appoint Dowie. The rest is history.
How do we know that this new bloke won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear in the same way that for example Lennie, Curbs (and Gritty) did? Neither of these regimes started with any money, very thin squads and club in crisis.
My point is that whilst the structure and the resources may itself be flawed, it takes more than that to guarantee failure or scupper success.
That is all very interesting (genuinely) and got me thinking about the same decisions and whether I would have made them or not.
However, the issue is that the club could have easily come out and said that Bob was gone and they had a candidate in mind and they would let us know as soon as they have any news. They could even have named him - although I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to.
The issue is that they gave the impression that they were going to 'search' for a replacement, opposed to appoint the chap they's already decided on.
I can see the financial benefits (in terms of negotiating with Luzon) of giving the impression that they had other options but it isn't the appointment that bothers most people - he might be a great manager for us. It is the fact that we were lied to, and when it was totally unnecessary to do so.
If you want a comparison, it's like your wife stopping off for a coffee on her way home from the shops and lying about it. Now if she was shagging your brother then fair enough, she has to lie, really, but once KM lied about something that we couldn't care less about - and were going to have happen anyway, she made herself look untrustworthy.
What is sad is that she is attractive and nice (popular with colleagues). She was born with her looks and she is, probably, naturally a pleasant person - neither of which are, in actual fact, necessary to run a business. The thing that is necessary is that one has the trust of colleagues, subordinates and 'customers'. She had that trust in my eyes, and, I suspect, many others. Now she has lost it and it will take a long time for her to get it back - if she ever does.
She could have looked at the moaning on here, delayed naming Luzon until Thursday or Friday,claimed she had interviewed 20 candidates - would that have placated the moaners?
No because Sky Sports were all over Luzon going to the club for talks. If another 19 were not seen going in or out then it would be obvious it's another lie.
Why would the Valley be the only place on earth that interviews would take place. In fact, some people would probably prefer to be interviewed away from the glare of publicity.
I think you're right actually John. Based on what Katrien said in yesterday's press conference, it seems that most of the interviews were held on Sunday evening at Katrien's apartment, during the gap between the end of Countryfile and the start of Call The Midwife.
I didn't believe a word RD said when he took us over, and for the same reason I didn't for Katriene, she does not have the credentials to be a CEO of a Football Club, not to take away her achievements elsewhere and her education is second to none. What can she actually do as CEO? She can put ideas forward to Roland knowing that that is in no part in line with his network spendatures.. She dodged every hot topic at the 5 year ST Q&A, pushed anything with substance onto Richard Murray who just spouted some horse manure as I doubt he really cares any more, certainly got some arrogance about him of late, deep down I'm sure he feels sorry for the real paying fans if he can see outside this bubble Roland has created.
Lovely lady or not this is the CEO of a Football Club, this amount of sheer lies at any other company as a CEO she'd be long gone. Although ultimately it's Roland pushing the words onto her, you'd think the pair of them would be clever enough to spout something that wasn't lying to the paying fans. It's a poor effort all round, my match day and non match day experience has worsened. The football itself shite and the club's being run as if all fans are thick as a plank of wood. Poor.
Well AB of course you may have the correct insight but frankly how can you be so certain?
RD may just have lucked out, this time. The underlying structure and project may be flawed but so much of it is down to variables that I don't think I could look at what is being attempted and be as certain as you.
The various boards and management's at the Valley have made plenty of poor decisions.
I wouldn't have done a deal with New England to see our best striker loaned there with 10 games to go. The decision was made to align with them to try to generate some cash.
I would never have appointed Lennie in a million years. The club just lucked out at the time because he was kind of the last man standing.
I would never of gone for "joint coaches/managers"
I fancied Gritty over Curbs
I thought that Dowie was a good appointment and the Pardont was a poor one.
I disliked Parky, but I welcomed CP.
I would never have sold Andy Reid. I would never have signed Andy Jones.
These were all either decisions made out of necessity or because somebody had a plan.
What is clear is that over the years that I have supported our club, there has rarely if ever been a time when the club had the finances it needed or the playing resources I would have liked it to have in an ideal world. Even through the last premier league excursion, the club had no real plan for the post Curbs era. They missed out on Billy Davis and made the disastrous decision to appoint Dowie. The rest is history.
How do we know that this new bloke won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear in the same way that for example Lennie, Curbs (and Gritty) did? Neither of these regimes started with any money, very thin squads and club in crisis.
My point is that whilst the structure and the resources may itself be flawed, it takes more than that to guarantee failure or scupper success.
Well AB of course you may have the correct insight but frankly how can you be so certain?
RD may just have lucked out, this time. The underlying structure and project may be flawed but so much of it is down to variables that I don't think I could look at what is being attempted and be as certain as you.
The various boards and management's at the Valley have made plenty of poor decisions.
I wouldn't have done a deal with New England to see our best striker loaned there with 10 games to go. The decision was made to align with them to try to generate some cash.
I would never have appointed Lennie in a million years. The club just lucked out at the time because he was kind of the last man standing.
I would never of gone for "joint coaches/managers"
I fancied Gritty over Curbs
I thought that Dowie was a good appointment and the Pardont was a poor one.
I disliked Parky, but I welcomed CP.
I would never have sold Andy Reid. I would never have signed Andy Jones.
These were all either decisions made out of necessity or because somebody had a plan.
What is clear is that over the years that I have supported our club, there has rarely if ever been a time when the club had the finances it needed or the playing resources I would have liked it to have in an ideal world. Even through the last premier league excursion, the club had no real plan for the post Curbs era. They missed out on Billy Davis and made the disastrous decision to appoint Dowie. The rest is history.
How do we know that this new bloke won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear in the same way that for example Lennie, Curbs (and Gritty) did? Neither of these regimes started with any money, very thin squads and club in crisis.
My point is that whilst the structure and the resources may itself be flawed, it takes more than that to guarantee failure or scupper success.
But all of those started from a different position in that they identified the players and subject to resources being available made the decision to sign them - and none of them had to consider who the owner wanted in the team and face dismissal if they didn't accommodate those wishes. It's a fundamental difference.
Isn't Roland's approach the same as many European teams, in which the Head coach gets to work with the players the Chairman/director of football/General manager buys. and where head coaches have got the push because they didn't play the big name signing the club bought?
I'm not saying I prefer this approach, but a lot of successful teams in Europe use it
What annoys me the most is that the truth, or what we are all conjecturing to be the truth, is actually a very credible position. That is:
1. We have a new owner who has stabilised the club financially and improved the outward facing infrastructure but has a very clear and particular way of doing things via a network of clubs and resources that will be shuffled come what may.
2. Clearly the wheels had come off with Bob so a change had to be made and that change was premeditated as per point 1 above.
3. Guy comes with a credible track record but one achieved in very different circumstances to those he will face here. That is Roland's gamble but they are his toys to play with as he pleases.
4. The motley crew of options on the bookies' lists did not fill me with any glee. I'd as soon see whether Roland's experiment has any legs for a while than have one of the usual suspects.
5. As a long standing supporter I am entitled to have a view on whether I like the circumstances as set out above or not and I have options at renewal time or in the shop/at the ground to make my views known. Until such times as I have the wherewithal to make Roland an offer for his toybox, that's about it.
Why the fcuk under these circumstances we get fed a circus act of deceit is the annoying thing. The truth would have been fine under all the circumstances. I would have much more respect for all concerned if they had just been honest.
Well AB of course you may have the correct insight but frankly how can you be so certain?
RD may just have lucked out, this time. The underlying structure and project may be flawed but so much of it is down to variables that I don't think I could look at what is being attempted and be as certain as you.
The various boards and management's at the Valley have made plenty of poor decisions.
I wouldn't have done a deal with New England to see our best striker loaned there with 10 games to go. The decision was made to align with them to try to generate some cash.
I would never have appointed Lennie in a million years. The club just lucked out at the time because he was kind of the last man standing.
I would never of gone for "joint coaches/managers"
I fancied Gritty over Curbs
I thought that Dowie was a good appointment and the Pardont was a poor one.
I disliked Parky, but I welcomed CP.
I would never have sold Andy Reid. I would never have signed Andy Jones.
These were all either decisions made out of necessity or because somebody had a plan.
What is clear is that over the years that I have supported our club, there has rarely if ever been a time when the club had the finances it needed or the playing resources I would have liked it to have in an ideal world. Even through the last premier league excursion, the club had no real plan for the post Curbs era. They missed out on Billy Davis and made the disastrous decision to appoint Dowie. The rest is history.
How do we know that this new bloke won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear in the same way that for example Lennie, Curbs (and Gritty) did? Neither of these regimes started with any money, very thin squads and club in crisis.
My point is that whilst the structure and the resources may itself be flawed, it takes more than that to guarantee failure or scupper success.
That is all very interesting (genuinely) and got me thinking about the same decisions and whether I would have made them or not.
However, the issue is that the club could have easily come out and said that Bob was gone and they had a candidate in mind and they would let us know as soon as they have any news. They could even have named him - although I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to.
The issue is that they gave the impression that they were going to 'search' for a replacement, opposed to appoint the chap they's already decided on.
I can see the financial benefits (in terms of negotiating with Luzon) of giving the impression that they had other options but it isn't the appointment that bothers most people - he might be a great manager for us. It is the fact that we were lied to, and when it was totally unnecessary to do so.
If you want a comparison, it's like your wife stopping off for a coffee on her way home from the shops and lying about it. Now if she was shagging your brother then fair enough, she has to lie, really, but once KM lied about something that we couldn't care less about - and were going to have happen anyway, she made herself look untrustworthy.
What is sad is that she is attractive and nice (popular with colleagues). She was born with her looks and she is, probably, naturally a pleasant person - neither of which are, in actual fact, necessary to run a business. The thing that is necessary is that one has the trust of colleagues, subordinates and 'customers'. She had that trust in my eyes, and, I suspect, many others. Now she has lost it and it will take a long time for her to get it back - if she ever does.
I don't really get why you need to make a point about her looks, when as you say, it has nothing to do with running a business, & when Bing didn't make any reference to them. Sorry if I've missed your intended point, I'm on some pretty strong (prescribed - honest!) medication at the moment.
I do agree that it will be hard to trust a word she says in the future though, but she has been put in that position by Roland, so it's not completely her fault.
If Alan Hansen were in a business environment, he might say; 'That's naive directing'. (Boom boom! Cue Tumbleweed)
Well AB of course you may have the correct insight but frankly how can you be so certain?
RD may just have lucked out, this time. The underlying structure and project may be flawed but so much of it is down to variables that I don't think I could look at what is being attempted and be as certain as you.
The various boards and management's at the Valley have made plenty of poor decisions.
I wouldn't have done a deal with New England to see our best striker loaned there with 10 games to go. The decision was made to align with them to try to generate some cash.
I would never have appointed Lennie in a million years. The club just lucked out at the time because he was kind of the last man standing.
I would never of gone for "joint coaches/managers"
I fancied Gritty over Curbs
I thought that Dowie was a good appointment and the Pardont was a poor one.
I disliked Parky, but I welcomed CP.
I would never have sold Andy Reid. I would never have signed Andy Jones.
These were all either decisions made out of necessity or because somebody had a plan.
What is clear is that over the years that I have supported our club, there has rarely if ever been a time when the club had the finances it needed or the playing resources I would have liked it to have in an ideal world. Even through the last premier league excursion, the club had no real plan for the post Curbs era. They missed out on Billy Davis and made the disastrous decision to appoint Dowie. The rest is history.
How do we know that this new bloke won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear in the same way that for example Lennie, Curbs (and Gritty) did? Neither of these regimes started with any money, very thin squads and club in crisis.
My point is that whilst the structure and the resources may itself be flawed, it takes more than that to guarantee failure or scupper success.
But all of those started from a different position in that they identified the players and subject to resources being available made the decision to sign them - and none of them had to consider who the owner wanted in the team and face dismissal if they didn't accommodate those wishes. It's a fundamental difference.
Isn't Roland's approach the same as many European teams, in which the Head coach gets to work with the players the Chairman/director of football/General manager buys. and where head coaches have got the push because they didn't play the big name signing the club bought?
I'm not saying I prefer this approach, but a lot of successful teams in Europe use it
No, I don't think it is, because the person above the head coach is usually an identifiable and therefore accountable individual with credible football experience.
At Charlton, it's a Belgian businessman with no football background who does't attend matches, relies on statistics, and who draws to a large extent from a limited pool of players whose registration he already owns.
Most clubs have a shortlist of Head Coach/Managers they want should the current incumbent leave. They have this list (which they keep updated) even when the current guy is doing well. GL may have been top of that list but there will have been other names. Millwall I am sure have a list in the draw...
''Charlton CEO Katrien Meire says the decision to part ways with Bob Peeters was not an easy one as the club began the process of searching for his replacement on Monday afternoon.'' (From the CAFC website)
---
Yet she had 20 applicants by 7pm Sunday and by the end of the evening it was whittled down to Luzon. Come Monday Luzon was packing his suitcase.
This is the sort of stuff that winds people up. There is simply no need in any of this to be so blatently economical with the truth / downright lies.
The trouble is now that some people simply won't believe anything again that is said by senior people at the Club.
nothing new though is it? I stopped believing whilst RM was still in charge.
I get your drift Ogs, but she is the Chief Exec of a high profile multi-million pound company. Her press conf was shown live on television today. This isn't Sandra from the sandwich shop unwittingly being thrown into the spotlight. So I'm not going to patronise her by taking a 'bless' attitude.
Events and communication from her boss in one direction and her customers in the other direction could not have gone worse in the last week.
It is always been said that she is Roland's eyes and ears, but I think the last week has proved this is rubbish. She is simply his mouth, and if I suspect correctly, he probably doesn't have any respect or value in her opinion. She wanted Riga to be retained apparently, RD didn't want to know, same I think with Yann, and I bet she probably hasn't been listened to on this episode (and I'm possibly being kind in presuming she was feeding back pre the Luzon announcement).
The whole thing has been a complete and utter disaster.
I'm not disagreeing with what you've written, AFKA. Obviously this whole episode should have been handled differently.
She was put in an impossible situation by her boss, although she should have handled it better - but people are turning on her as if she was the Wicked Witch of the West.
Okay, we all feel upset by the situation but we're kidding ourselves if we truly thought things would be different. The Luzon rumour was posted on here 2 weeks ago. No smoke without fire and all that.
Back to Meire ...... for more than 48 hours we've said our piece, twisted our knives and cut our pound of flesh. The point has been made over and over again.
Time to stop the personal vindictiveness directed at her.
She's been spouting bullshit since the day she arrived. You only have to listen to her in previous interviews. The way she speaks, and the way she shapes her 'answers' are not really any different to the farce the other day.
If she's in the bullshit business where people's emotions are involved, and she doesn't want to take the flack, then she should get another job.
She probably couldn't care less about all this, and probably has read barely any of what's on here.
She could have looked at the moaning on here, delayed naming Luzon until Thursday or Friday,claimed she had interviewed 20 candidates - would that have placated the moaners?
No because Sky Sports were all over Luzon going to the club for talks. If another 19 were not seen going in or out then it would be obvious it's another lie.
Why would the Valley be the only place on earth that interviews would take place. In fact, some people would probably prefer to be interviewed away from the glare of publicity.
So up to 20 people would choose not to be interviewed at the valley you think? John, wake up, stop kidding yourself.
Thanks West country - yes I'm wide awake are you? My comment about the 20 candidates was in a reply to a question which I will ask you. She (K.M) could have looked at the moaning on here, delayed naming Luzon until Thursday or Friday,claimed she had interviewed 20 candidates - would that have placated the moaners? Also who was on your list of suitable candidates? Of course I doubt that anyone other than Guy Luzon (if he was) was interviewed or the job. We were at best probably the victims of poor P.R. and spin, at worst lied to. But In my 60 years plus of supporting Charlton we've been the victim of lies and spin at some time, by all the various Valley regimes. That comes with being a football supporter.
Well AB of course you may have the correct insight but frankly how can you be so certain?
RD may just have lucked out, this time. The underlying structure and project may be flawed but so much of it is down to variables that I don't think I could look at what is being attempted and be as certain as you.
The various boards and management's at the Valley have made plenty of poor decisions.
I wouldn't have done a deal with New England to see our best striker loaned there with 10 games to go. The decision was made to align with them to try to generate some cash.
I would never have appointed Lennie in a million years. The club just lucked out at the time because he was kind of the last man standing.
I would never of gone for "joint coaches/managers"
I fancied Gritty over Curbs
I thought that Dowie was a good appointment and the Pardont was a poor one.
I disliked Parky, but I welcomed CP.
I would never have sold Andy Reid. I would never have signed Andy Jones.
These were all either decisions made out of necessity or because somebody had a plan.
What is clear is that over the years that I have supported our club, there has rarely if ever been a time when the club had the finances it needed or the playing resources I would have liked it to have in an ideal world. Even through the last premier league excursion, the club had no real plan for the post Curbs era. They missed out on Billy Davis and made the disastrous decision to appoint Dowie. The rest is history.
How do we know that this new bloke won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear in the same way that for example Lennie, Curbs (and Gritty) did? Neither of these regimes started with any money, very thin squads and club in crisis.
My point is that whilst the structure and the resources may itself be flawed, it takes more than that to guarantee failure or scupper success.
But all of those started from a different position in that they identified the players and subject to resources being available made the decision to sign them - and none of them had to consider who the owner wanted in the team and face dismissal if they didn't accommodate those wishes. It's a fundamental difference.
Isn't Roland's approach the same as many European teams, in which the Head coach gets to work with the players the Chairman/director of football/General manager buys. and where head coaches have got the push because they didn't play the big name signing the club bought?
I'm not saying I prefer this approach, but a lot of successful teams in Europe use it
I am certain that in most well run European clubs it isn't quite like that. There is usually a Director of Football who holds the budget. There will be tension between the Head Coach and DoF because the Head Coach will always want players the DoF says they can't afford. However I really don't think that in a Bundesliga club, or certainly "my" Viktoria Plzen, the DoF would select and buy an individual player himself, nor would he dispute what kind of player is needed, if for example the Head Coach would say, "I need a big man up front capable of holding up the ball".
The main difference therefore is that the Head Coach does not actually control the money. And if you examine the career dealings of one H. Redknapp (144 player purchases in 7 years at West Ham) you may conclude that the system has merit. But its not RD's system.
Comments
RD may just have lucked out, this time. The underlying structure and project may be flawed but so much of it is down to variables that I don't think I could look at what is being attempted and be as certain as you.
The various boards and management's at the Valley have made plenty of poor decisions.
I wouldn't have done a deal with New England to see our best striker loaned there with 10 games to go. The decision was made to align with them to try to generate some cash.
I would never have appointed Lennie in a million years. The club just lucked out at the time because he was kind of the last man standing.
I would never of gone for "joint coaches/managers"
I fancied Gritty over Curbs
I thought that Dowie was a good appointment and the Pardont was a poor one.
I disliked Parky, but I welcomed CP.
I would never have sold Andy Reid. I would never have signed Andy Jones.
These were all either decisions made out of necessity or because somebody had a plan.
What is clear is that over the years that I have supported our club, there has rarely if ever been a time when the club had the finances it needed or the playing resources I would have liked it to have in an ideal world. Even through the last premier league excursion, the club had no real plan for the post Curbs era. They missed out on Billy Davis and made the disastrous decision to appoint Dowie. The rest is history.
How do we know that this new bloke won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear in the same way that for example Lennie, Curbs (and Gritty) did? Neither of these regimes started with any money, very thin squads and club in crisis.
My point is that whilst the structure and the resources may itself be flawed, it takes more than that to guarantee failure or scupper success.
How are these people ever going to grasp even the slightest notion of how football is more than just numbers on a spreadsheet when the idea of watching the team is an inconvenience accepted by someone who day to day runs the club!
However, the issue is that the club could have easily come out and said that Bob was gone and they had a candidate in mind and they would let us know as soon as they have any news. They could even have named him - although I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to.
The issue is that they gave the impression that they were going to 'search' for a replacement, opposed to appoint the chap they's already decided on.
I can see the financial benefits (in terms of negotiating with Luzon) of giving the impression that they had other options but it isn't the appointment that bothers most people - he might be a great manager for us. It is the fact that we were lied to, and when it was totally unnecessary to do so.
If you want a comparison, it's like your wife stopping off for a coffee on her way home from the shops and lying about it. Now if she was shagging your brother then fair enough, she has to lie, really, but once KM lied about something that we couldn't care less about - and were going to have happen anyway, she made herself look untrustworthy.
What is sad is that she is attractive and nice (popular with colleagues). She was born with her looks and she is, probably, naturally a pleasant person - neither of which are, in actual fact, necessary to run a business. The thing that is necessary is that one has the trust of colleagues, subordinates and 'customers'. She had that trust in my eyes, and, I suspect, many others. Now she has lost it and it will take a long time for her to get it back - if she ever does.
She was watching Poirot.
Lovely lady or not this is the CEO of a Football Club, this amount of sheer lies at any other company as a CEO she'd be long gone. Although ultimately it's Roland pushing the words onto her, you'd think the pair of them would be clever enough to spout something that wasn't lying to the paying fans. It's a poor effort all round, my match day and non match day experience has worsened. The football itself shite and the club's being run as if all fans are thick as a plank of wood. Poor.
I'm not saying I prefer this approach, but a lot of successful teams in Europe use it
GHOOCHANNEJHAD
1. We have a new owner who has stabilised the club financially and improved the outward facing infrastructure but has a very clear and particular way of doing things via a network of clubs and resources that will be shuffled come what may.
2. Clearly the wheels had come off with Bob so a change had to be made and that change was premeditated as per point 1 above.
3. Guy comes with a credible track record but one achieved in very different circumstances to those he will face here. That is Roland's gamble but they are his toys to play with as he pleases.
4. The motley crew of options on the bookies' lists did not fill me with any glee. I'd as soon see whether Roland's experiment has any legs for a while than have one of the usual suspects.
5. As a long standing supporter I am entitled to have a view on whether I like the circumstances as set out above or not and I have options at renewal time or in the shop/at the ground to make my views known. Until such times as I have the wherewithal to make Roland an offer for his toybox, that's about it.
Why the fcuk under these circumstances we get fed a circus act of deceit is the annoying thing. The truth would have been fine under all the circumstances. I would have much more respect for all concerned if they had just been honest.
I do agree that it will be hard to trust a word she says in the future though, but she has been put in that position by Roland, so it's not completely her fault.
If Alan Hansen were in a business environment, he might say; 'That's naive directing'. (Boom boom! Cue Tumbleweed)
At Charlton, it's a Belgian businessman with no football background who does't attend matches, relies on statistics, and who draws to a large extent from a limited pool of players whose registration he already owns.
She tells one little porky on behalf of her boss and you're tearing her head off.
Obviously this whole episode should have been handled differently.
She was put in an impossible situation by her boss, although she should have handled it better - but people are turning on her as if she was the Wicked Witch of the West.
Okay, we all feel upset by the situation but we're kidding ourselves if we truly thought things would be different. The Luzon rumour was posted on here 2 weeks ago.
No smoke without fire and all that.
Back to Meire ...... for more than 48 hours we've said our piece, twisted our knives and cut our pound of flesh. The point has been made over and over again.
Time to stop the personal vindictiveness directed at her.
She's only the messenger.
If she's in the bullshit business where people's emotions are involved, and she doesn't want to take the flack, then she should get another job.
She probably couldn't care less about all this, and probably has read barely any of what's on here.
This I think.
Move on nothing to see here now..........
My comment about the 20 candidates was in a reply to a question which I will ask you.
She (K.M) could have looked at the moaning on here, delayed naming Luzon until Thursday or Friday,claimed she had interviewed 20 candidates - would that have placated the moaners?
Also who was on your list of suitable candidates?
Of course I doubt that anyone other than Guy Luzon (if he was) was interviewed or the job.
We were at best probably the victims of poor P.R. and spin, at worst lied to.
But In my 60 years plus of supporting Charlton we've been the victim of lies and spin at some time, by all the various Valley regimes.
That comes with being a football supporter.
The main difference therefore is that the Head Coach does not actually control the money. And if you examine the career dealings of one H. Redknapp (144 player purchases in 7 years at West Ham) you may conclude that the system has merit. But its not RD's system.