As someone who sanctioned the takeover by Mr Duchatelet, my personal opinion is that Richard Murray’s position has become untenable.
I usually read Martin Samuel’s column in the Daily Mail with some indifference. However, his article in today’s Mail sums up the current situation at CAFC very succinctly.
As someone who championed the takeover, Murray – perhaps unwittingly – appears to have pressed the button on a systematic dismantling and asset strip of the Club I have supported for the last 55 years.
I would suggest that the time has come for Murray to do the honourable thing and resign his position.
8
Comments
2) We don't know just how close to administration we were
3) We don't know if there were any other viable offers on the table
I just wish someone, anyone, would be completely candid in telling us exactly what is going on at our club.
They were both extraordinary achievements and should never be forgotten.
However once Alan Curbishley and Peter Varney, the loyal first lieutenants on and off the pitch, left in quick succession the wheels fell off the Charlton caravan.
The man is now like the Queen. He has no real power whatsoever but is wheeled out on ceremonial occasions to wave to his public and sugar the pill of change offered by successive regimes with a few meaningless platitudes such as Covered End describes above. In other words tell people what they want to hear then get the hell out of there until the next time.
A sad spectacle in my opinion and I can only assume he still feels there is money to be recouped if he plays Duchatelet's game. The cost could well be more than just the money namely his integrity but only he knows whether or not that is important.
The sad thing is, like the boy who cried wolf, none of us would really trust them either if they did.
Is Murray's position untenable ?
Not really, because when the sh*t hits the fan, his role is downplayed to no more than a matchday meeter & greeter. Things like knowing who exactly is signing our players, or even knowing that Powell had been sacked are said to be out of his remit and he has no knowledge about apparently.
Why someone would want to put their name to something, particularly a figurehead position such as chairman, when (if true) they are THAT outside the loop in such fundamental structural decision making, then you have to question why that person would want to do that.
Too much of Murray's association with the club is focused on the past, whether positively from the rebirth / rising years, negatively with the spiralling years, and uncertainty during the TJ / Slater years.
The question has to be what is he bringing to the party now and in the immediate future, and if it is just to be a glorified matchday host as our owner will only visit 2-3 times a year, then his title should be downgraded to that.
Otherwise as Chairman of the club, his prints are all over everything associated with the club, and he can't dis-associate himself from the difficult stuff.
He used to be a great writer at The Times but inevitably his move to the Daily Mail has turned him into a tabloid sensationalist.
I don't think there is a malice bone in his body, I just think the man is so desperate to bring the good times back that he partly created, but in turn threw away, he will sign his name to anything in the hope that we get it back ASAP.
He could have walked away with some dignity in tact when the Belgian took over, but he again decided to tie his flag to the mast. Admirably some might say. But it's beginning to look increasingly stupid in my book.
You would struggle to find a sports journalist anywhere that would have researched and evidenced their work as much as him -read his articles and you will never see ranting ala Littlejohn, but well written and detailed argument that the reader can make their own mind up on.
Obviously you can like him or loathe him, but IMHO you are being a little unfair to the bearded one,
A key element of our success after we returned to the Valley was the willingness of Richard, (and also Martin Simons) to engage with the ordinary fans. They did so because they believed that it was really important to do that. Richard still clearly believes that.
If he does resign, I am absolutely clear that the engagement with fans will drop to meaningless levels. We have conclusive guidance from Belgium that RD doesn't think it is remotely important.
Now then some people will say, "what's the point of this engagement if he lies to us?". Well firstly I have seen no evidence yet that he has told any lies. It's been suggested here, and it has been suggested to me privately by people ITK, but I have seen no evidence. What I am sure about is that he himself is unclear about his own role as a non-exec chairman, specifically how RD expects him to work. Because RD not RM is the only one that matters now in how this club functions.
It's worth thinking about this in terms of diplomacy. It's easy for us all to have contempt for diplomats. They seem to do nothing, or they seem to excuse the inexcusable. Well that is what George Bush thought, and look where that got the world. And we are not the ones with the heavy armour. RD is. We desperately, desperately need someone in the boardroom who is ready and willing to try and explain things to us (once he himself understands things) and who at the same time can explain "our things" to this board. To explain that we are not the same as the Standard fans. That we are capable of understanding basic business realities. That given the chance, we as fans can do big things to help make this Club financially and emotionally healthier.
If Richard Murray goes, there is no one else who is willing or able to play that role.
To say he is in there fighting our corner is misguided.
You are allowing your anti Mail prejudice to affect your reading of the article in my opinion.
My worry is that RD will say to that, bring it on. Of course like everyone on here apart from RM I haven't met the man but I have done my best to read all I can about him, and we have our links to Belgian journos. The picture I have is of a man who is 100% certain of his own judgements; has what he thinks are his principles, even though many may violently disagree with them; and has a belligerent combative streak (essential, if you want to start your own political party, look at our own people in this respect). On top of that he currently thinks, well I got all this grief from the Standard fans, but I showed them and I will show this lot.
If it is us directly against RD, and "the heat is on", there is only one side which will get burnt. Us. It's like Ukraine against Russia. And even as I speak there will be diplomats in Kiev and Moscow working hard behind the scenes to make sure the hapless Ukrainians don't get twatted. We need our own version of Catherine Ashton (a supremely able and much under-rated diplomat). If anyone has a better name than Richard Murray, I'm looking forward to hearing of them.
Amazing.
So let me get this straight. Murray sold to a megalomaniac ( "we had other offers" - supporters trust city meeting. Feb 2014) but he must now act as a diplomat as the situation has now turned into that of one similar to the Crimean crisis.
Bloody absurd!
Prague. Put the shovel down and tell Richard to do the same will you.
Apart from the VIP meeting where RM was, shall we say, flexible on the actuality, there hasn't been any real communications from "the Board's Spokesman".
Where's his 'responsibility' to us. Where is the dialogue? The explanations? We've heard jack shit from the management team at CAFC. Indeed, we were even getting more involvment from the old regime prior to their departure.
No one else willing or able?
Seems to me that RM isn't either willing or able to at least keep us in the loop.
(I was going to cut and paste an example contract but it was too long to fit here!)
If what you have said is accurate, that he really doesn't know what he's expected to do, then surely for his own sanity and security he should get out now?
What with KM being a lawyer who has worked in City of London law firms, the concept of a non-executive chairman not having a very explicit contract setting out his duties and responsibilities seems just too weird to be true.
I am sorry I haven't made any headway with you on this. I'll put down the shovel as you put it, but I really believe what I'm saying here.
Just as a matter of fact:
Murray sold to a megalomaniac ( "we had other offers" - supporters trust city meeting. Feb 2014)
As you know, as a 10% shareholder he had very little say in the matter, once Jiminez and Cash decided. And yes they had other offers, but please don't let's kid ourselves that Cash Jiminez and Slater asked all these buyers about their attitude to fan engagement , corporate social responsibility, equal opportunities, and heaven knows what other 'soft values' before choosing from one of several equally minted potential buyers. And 'megolomaniac' seems to me to be almost an integral part of the DNA of any English club chairman nowadays.
1) he genuinely didn't know about the Powell position in which case his job isn't being shown respect by RD and the Belgian massive so he should resign with his head held high and not allow himself to be put in these positions.
2) he did know about the Powell position and therefore has lied about it and is happy to be RD's Iraqi information minister. And happy to go along with the treatment of a man who's shown him and the club great service and loyalty.
Either way a I fear a lot of good feelings towards RM by those not close to more recent events but prepared to accept what he was doing, has been lost.
Irrespective as to the outcome of his actions I refuse to believe that RM has any bad intentions, and if someone asked me to walk away from the club that I'd supported for years I would ignore them and carry on, even if my contribution wasn't as useful as others wanted it to be.
After all that he has done for the club (again, ignoring the success of those actions) I think it is a little unfair to ask him to walk away from being involved if it gives him pleasure.
If his excuse is that he is unclear about his own role, then that's the clincher for me. He is not inexperienced or naïve and I would not want someone in this kind of position if they had no understanding of what they were there fore.