Out of interest when was Colin Powell's final Charlton appearance? When did RM become a Charlton fan?
Colin Powell left for Gillingham in 1981 I think following our promotion back to division 2 under Mike Bailey
Richard Murray became a Charlton fan sometime during our tenure at Selhurst apparently so he may not have seen Colin play live.
Yes, a number of us picked that up and shared our amazement at that remark privately, but I thought I'd leave it be given the thread was about paying deserved tribute to Paddy. In fairness, the quote may have been made up by the comms team. Or not.
Richard Murray said that he fondly remembered Paddy's playing days or something very similar. Would the Comms team have made that up? I'd doubt it. We can discuss it here surely as it isn't the Paddy appreciation thread. As soon as I read the story it jumped out at me and I thought 'yeah right'.
I also thought the same... a bit of a silly thing to say really whoever came out with it. Surely many of the kinds of fans who would bother to read a tribute to Paddy would be the ones that also know Murray didn't become "one of us" until some time after he played for us. Odd.
I see that the same old pratagonists are still throwing shit around. And others get caught up in certain self-serving peoples agendas and make the mistake of over-analysing things and doing their work for them.
First the knives are out because a club legend is being "forced out", only it then comes to light that might not quite be the case. Then stuff is said about another club legend who may or may not be retiring, but things are posted without permission and without checking the facts first.
Then the knives are out because there is no statement about Powell. Then they're out again because some idiot addressed a letter incorrectly, which is clearly all a conspiracy. Then when a statement comes out on the club site the knives come out again because there's an opportunity to have another dig about what Murray has said.
For the record I never saw Sam Bartram play, but it doesn't stop me remembering his playing days fondly as I have heard so much about them. That's all.
I have just entered this debate rather late, and I am astonished by the overall comments. Show me a man who never made a mistake, and I will show you a man who never made a decision. We all know that Richard has made mistakes, but never deliberately intending to damage the Club. How many of us have put our money in to cover the wages ? For me the answer is that of course Richard can maintain his current position, his historical knowledge and experience (including the mistakes) will be extremely useful to the new owner and staff. I have only ever had one conversation with Richard, but I can assure you that I have never met anyone who loves this Club more than him.
I agree with much of that sentiment Granpa. Sadly in life those who stand up and are counted make decisions which creates many detractors as well as supporters. I think his motives were always guided by trying to keep the club he loves alive and safe. In so doing he has laid himself open to criticism which, though it may not be entirely fair in the historical context, nevertheless has meant he is associated with decisions which many see as destroying the soul of the club we love. I don't see him like that but many, indeed now perhaps the majority do.
Given the tide against Richard is turning significantly for the worse - even on here amongst perhaps on average the most pro group of supporters, I think it is probably time he went - although I understand and respect what Prague is saying.
Some have called him a Lord Haw Haw figure. I don't think that is a correct historical analogy. For me I would say that he is more the Charlton equivalent to Marshall Petain. A man who went from national hero to a being cashiered for treason, by negotiating to try and save his country. His genuine love for France led him down a disasterous route of collaboration from which he would never recover his former hero status.
I still have some investment in RD to turn our club around. What is true is that what we had as a club in our pomp during the last 20 years is gone forever. For his own sake I believe it is time Richard moved on now. He would go with mine and many others sincere thanks. I say that with a sinking feeling in my stomach because what he would leave behind is uncertainty which I suspect makes us all feel queasy.
I see that the same old pratagonists are still throwing shit around. And others get caught up in certain self-serving peoples agendas and make the mistake of over-analysing things and doing their work for them.
First the knives are out because a club legend is being "forced out", only it then comes to light that might not quite be the case. Then stuff is said about another club legend who may or may not be retiring, but things are posted without permission and without checking the facts first.
Then the knives are out because there is no statement about Powell. Then they're out again because some idiot addressed a letter incorrectly, which is clearly all a conspiracy. Then when a statement comes out on the club site the knives come out again because there's an opportunity to have another dig about what Murray has said.
For the record I never saw Sam Bartram play, but it doesn't stop me remembering his playing days fondly as I have heard so much about them. That's all.
Get over yourselves.
It's good to have you back off it, don't leave it so long next time.
We all know the miracle worker Curbs carried us through the glory years and RM decided to cut that short and turned down the offer of help from Curbs to assist in finding his successor, at that point when he took his own view over Curbs regarding footballing issues it was pretty obvious things would go wonky But RM was brave enough to appoint Curbs in the first place so his credit outweighs his negatives although he has done his best to even that up !!!!
As others said I didn't believe the Colin Powell reference was correct but we all know the sentiment of the article was genuine and that's all that really matters where Colin Powell is concerned .
I can see that RM probably felt that he could somehow influence the cockney mafia but like Blair and Bush, it was never going to happen. The positives are endless but betraying your friends for me is the ultimate no no. Others feel that loyalty to the club comes first which is fair enough. We all have to live by our beliefs and principles and we all make different choices. But no one should expect everyone to approve of their decisions and the same goes for RM.
I find it hard to believe that Richard Murray played "no active part in the Jiminez Slater takeover". And frankly I find it incredible that anyone would look to push that myth. He owned 100% of the equity ffs. I know that Peter Varney had a role in setting up the transaction but I don't know what the precise role was. Pre sale RM rounded up all of the equity, ex directors and fans alike, so as to facilitate a transfer in ownership - I understand that according to his advisors that was the best way to attract buyers. He then did not pursue a sale price but gave away 90% of the equity for a tenner simply because there wasn't a queue of buyers and, as Mundell puts it so eloquently, the club was out of cash and Murrays appetite/ ability to keep funding the club was fast running out. Three years on and my understanding of the rumours is that Jiminez and Slater managed to exit with some losses on their loans perhaps 25%-30%? They sold the club for £14M including the "survival bonus" but that would be considerably less than they injected over the three years. Not only did they bring in a new squad and football management team but they also left the new owner with the opportunity to do the same. But with a much better P&L and a core of young decent players on 3 year deals. Unlike Mundell, I have met Richard Murray during my time on the Trust (thanks to an introduction from Prague Addick). During that 18 month period I also met a number of ex directors including Peter Varney. I spell that out for two reasons - my sourcing of information goes way beyond Richard Murray. More importantly, along with the vast majority of fans, I believe that the supporters Trust should engage with the club. It was therefore a clear part the Trust's strategy to host Richard in the City last February. Anyone who believes that the way to enhance the fans relationship with the club and also enhance the club's prospects is to stand on the outside of the tent pissing in is deluding themselves. As I have posted before, I drink Leffe not bitter!
You miss the point that it was Richard Murray claiming he wasn't responsible for the 2010 takeover, not me. That's the problem with your assertion that he oversaw it. He said not - go back and read the VIP meeting thread.
I agree with a lot of the positive things said about RM and he wasn't to blame or responsible for anyone leaving the club, but understand that on that weekend in July 2012 when Varney quit the board he was ready to go too because he knew then what he was dealing with in Jimenez and Slater. Instead, he changed sides, collaborated as a director in the attack on Varney and Kavanagh - which goes beyond what is in the public domain - and has been trying to rewrite history ever since to justify himself. That's the problem.
I think you missed the subtleties of the wording I deliberately chose! Anyone (including Richard Murray!) is pushing the boundaries of credibility if they suggest the 100% owner of the equity was not an active participant in the sale. Perhaps Murray wanted more value from the deal but the thing is that to get value from Charlton equity you need the club to be going in the right direction and you need deep pockets - he came out better than Jordan and Goldberg. It is my belief that Charlton as an entity will only have real tradeable value once it can reach the play-offs which funnily enough coincides with the interests of the fans. We are extremely fortunate that we now find ourselves back in the Championship with a much better financial position and a chance to develop a young squad. Perhaps we are a long way from the play-offs or perhaps we can have a crack in 2015-16? That choice is with Duchatelet and the new management team on and off the pitch... All the rest is simply noise. Murray is still in the game as chairman of the board and that's why people talk to him and about him.
I have just entered this debate rather late, and I am astonished by the overall comments. Show me a man who never made a mistake, and I will show you a man who never made a decision. We all know that Richard has made mistakes, but never deliberately intending to damage the Club. How many of us have put our money in to cover the wages ? For me the answer is that of course Richard can maintain his current position, his historical knowledge and experience (including the mistakes) will be extremely useful to the new owner and staff. I have only ever had one conversation with Richard, but I can assure you that I have never met anyone who loves this Club more than him.
That is the title of the thread. So without discussing Murrays past record of success and failure with the club, is his current position untenable?
Seems to me he is effectively impotent and that he is kept on as a sop to the fans as a link to the good old days. Can he really influence where the club is going and if not why bother having him there?
That is the title of the thread. So without discussing Murrays past record of success and failure with the club, is his current position untenable?
Seems to me he is effectively impotent and that he is kept on as a sop to the fans as a link to the good old days. Can he really influence where the club is going and if not why bother having him there?
The Trust will not allow him to be a "sop" and neither would he want to be. He wants to help rebuild the effective dialogue that fans have had with the Board at various stage in the past.
In the short term Katrien (and therefore RD) have put any such discussions on hold. Their argument is that they want to start such discussions once they have had a chance to show us in close season what their concrete plans look like. RM has no choice but to follow that dictum for now, since he has a non-executive role. And that is a perfectly normal situation to be in. If we get to August and no such dialogue is emerging, that is the time to consider his position. But I am sure he won't need threads like this, to prod him into doing so. Unfortunately such a thread, and some of the spiteful comments from people who have never met him, or think they know a lot more than they do, will only cause him to ask whether he should bother. And then if he decides not, the outlook for dialogue is far worse than it is now.
Just to be clear, I do not include @Airman Brown in the list of people whose comments piss me off. He and Richard worked together for many years and things happen. I respect his viewpoint. He and I have often discussed RM,and PV, and I am sure we'll continue to do so. As for others, I think it is wrong to attack RM with comments based on vague innuendo. "Where I come from" you either come right out with your concrete accusations, or you shut up. That said, I don't pretend to know everything, or even 10% of all the things that have gone on behind the scenes in the last few years, so anyone who thinks I'm seriously misguided is welcome to set me straight in a PM.
It's just so sad that things have ended up like this for RM at Charlton, for a while there we were THE club that everyone outside the top 10 clubs wanted to emulate - much of that was down to him.
Clearly things spiralled out of control post-relegation and we have never really stabilised for any length of time since then and RM has had to break bread with people he probably would never have dealt with if he had a choice in the matter.
For me it's gutting to hear of the break down on his relationship with PV, they were a great team who did an amazing job for so long and I hope one day they can put things right.
RM has got things wrong but the guy has done amazing things for the club and for that he deserves respect - but that does not mean he is above criticism by any means.
Prague - come August it will be 8 months since the takeover which is a long time to wait for RM to play an active role as link between owners and supporters.
I think the bolding of the word 'no choice' speaks volumes.
Not denigrating what has gone on previously and know nothing about his relationship with PV so can't comment on that, it just seems to me he will be marginalised even come the new season
Prague - come August it will be 8 months since the takeover which is a long time to wait for RM to play an active role as link between owners and supporters.
I think the bolding of the word 'no choice' speaks volumes.
Not denigrating what has gone on previously and know nothing about his relationship with PV so can't comment on that, it just seems to me he will be marginalised even come the new season
Well, he has no choice because he is like any non-exec director bound by the decision of the exec directors. What do you think RD would think, if he found out RM was meeting with supporters, when they all agreed they they would leave it until the rebuilding is under way, and some signings are visible?
As far as I can tell, he respects their current stance. I kind of get it, too. If it isn't happening by August you may be right that he has been "marginalised", but he will have worked that out for himself. Behind the scenes he is lobbying for dialogue, this much I know to be true.
I think there is a misguided view that he either has to run the club (and own it) or he has to leave.
I don't see why he can't 'evolve' his position and still make a worthwhile contribution. Sure he is not calling the shots now - he has done that and I would suggest that under his ownership we had some very good years. Now he has a smaller role, but that doesn't make his position untenable, in my view.
Ignoring what went on with PV and SK and AB and WP, I think he has always been upfront about his position. I've heard him say (in person) that his 'power' and 'influence' was minimal with Slater and Jimenez as he only held 10% of the shares. He was, I believe, on hand to lend the club money, but other than that he had no real influence. From things he's said it would appear that he was, to some extent, in agreement with some of the actions that MS and TJ undertook, but in any event I don't think there was much he could have done. I know that AB doesn't share that view (that he could have done something) and I'm not suggesting that I am right and he is wrong, but he had agreed to sell the club on and, therefore, gave up the right to make all the decisions.
His role, now, is different. I know that is a weird comparison but no one is suggesting that we should move Chris Solly on because he wasn't in a position to dictate to the board and share the club's plans with fans. I suspect that all the players know things that we would like to be told but they don't tell us. That is the way it is - we will be told what those that make the decisions want us to know when they want to tell us.
I am 43 and I don't 'answer' to my parents like I did when I was 10. That doesn't make my Mum and Dad's position untenable, it doesn't mean that they are unable to make recommendations (sometimes without being asked) as to what I should do. My Mum and Dad don't make all the decisions in my life, they used to, but their position has evolved. That doesn't mean that they should step back having looked after me during my childhood so as to avoid being associated with what I do in adulthood.
I don't see how RM's position should be black or white. He is making a contribution (I assume) and I suspect that the club benefits from it - all be it in a smaller way than in the past.
I think if we hound him out for his past actions and/or the lack of authority he now has, we will come to regret it, and not because of what he has done for the club, but for what he will do going forward.
The one thing you can be certain about in professional football is the consequences of your judgements are there for all to see. On our rise to the Premier League I doubt for a club of our size there was a higher profile trio than Murray, Varney and Curbishley - the club was held up as the very model of prudent success. Sadly as with so many working partnerships sooner or later the individuals involved no longer shared a common interest/ agenda.
Equally after a protracted period of success it is not uncommon for those involved to believe their own headlines. I could argue all three participants suffered the consequences as a result.
Murrays role in our fall from grace is indeed there for all to see both the succession of unsuccessful appointees and the multiple parties brought to the table to keep the club from financially failing altogether.
It is clear a major issue arose under the last regime. None of us as supporters were, nor should be, privy to the full detail of the issue. It was an internal issue. Anybody who has served on a company board or executive will know conflicts quite often heated conflicts can arise. The point is what happens in the boardroom stays in the boardroom. As with any collective you have a choice to follow the "party line" or walk away. The problem with the latter option is you only get to do it once. At which point you are "outside the tent pissing in".
The people involved clearly feel very strongly about the issue and the actions taken but under the scored earth policy pursued by the previous major investors you can well imagine the cliché of "unless and until you have walked in their shoes" coming into play almost on a daily basis.
For those who seem to wish to keep the issue in the public eye - it is a one sided argument - would anyone really expect a club director to discuss such issues in public? Companies are bound by confidentiality agreements for a reason.
As for the future I can but refer to my own experience. I worked for a very talented CEO, who when appointing new executives would often focus on candidates who were in effect "drinking in the last chance saloon" on the basis they will have learned significantly more from their mistakes than their successes.
Richard Murray has a wealth of experience and contacts in the industry, which other than Chris Parkes, would otherwise not be available to the new ownership. For that background alone he has a role to play in our future. Like him or not he has travelled the same journey we have over the past decade or more. I have no problem with him continuing that journey.
That is the title of the thread. So without discussing Murrays past record of success and failure with the club, is his current position untenable?
Seems to me he is effectively impotent and that he is kept on as a sop to the fans as a link to the good old days. Can he really influence where the club is going and if not why bother having him there?
The Trust will not allow him to be a "sop" and neither would he want to be.
ed. Going mad, appears i'm just repeating what i don't remember saying 3 months ago....
I think there is a misguided view that he either has to run the club (and own it) or he has to leave.
I don't see how RM's position should be black or white. He is making a contribution (I assume) and I suspect that the club benefits from it - all be it in a smaller way than in the past.
It seems incongruous for there to be talk of RM's lost value to the club and therefore 'telling' RD he's not needed anymore. Surely it's RD who's recognised the value RM brings both to him and the club or, presumably, RM wouldn't be there any more.
And, leaving aside the history, that's good enough for me.
RM has had his successes and has overseen some disasters too. Clearly there are some things that haven't impressed some people. It doesn't mean he won't be part of success again, even if he was the most detestable person on earth (which I'm quite sure he isn't) and as @Grapevine49 rightly says it's hardly uncommon for the most successful people to have learned from the times when things went wrong. Add that learning to RM's successes and I see one hugely valuable man indeed.
That is the title of the thread. So without discussing Murrays past record of success and failure with the club, is his current position untenable?
Seems to me he is effectively impotent and that he is kept on as a sop to the fans as a link to the good old days. Can he really influence where the club is going and if not why bother having him there?
The Trust will not allow him to be a "sop" and neither would he want to be.
Not being funny Prague, but I can't see how you can say that.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but its my understanding that over the last few months, Murray was not informed let alone consulted that Powell was being sacked, ditto for Riga being appointed, and didn't have a clue who it was responsible for bringing players into the club.
Dress up the non-executive stuff all the want, I just can't for the life of me understand how a 'Chairman' of a company could be so in the dark of such key fundamental aspects of the business that he 'chairs', particularly given his much stronger and long-standing involvement with the club.
Whether his role is untenable or not I haven't a clue, because i don't think any of us have an honest steer on what his actual role is. Personally, i think Murray's 'publicly stated' involvement will evolve depending on how well (or badly) this regime performs / is received.
So what was Muzza implying then, that he is there to soften the blow if the going gets tough otherwise he will be keeping his head down and there for input only if needed? Seems perfectly tenable to me on that basis.
To this day I don't think there was any real suitable candidate to replace Curbs. I don't believe that RM appointed ID to get back at Tango Man. ID lied to get the job. Put his Palarse connections aside and the fact that ID took aside half way through the season looking like dropping into the 3rd flight and then takes them to the play-offs that same season, wins the play-offs and only narrowly goes down didn't seem too bad at the time. Billy Davies sounded good as well but it sounded he would have also had baggae. Peter Taylor, bloody good coach but out of his depth a Premier League level. We may have stayed up with Curbs but I still feel it would have been our toughest Premiership year since coming back in 2000.
To this day I don't think there was any real suitable candidate to replace Curbs. I don't believe that RM appointed ID to get back at Tango Man. ID lied to get the job. Put his Palarse connections aside and the fact that ID took aside half way through the season looking like dropping into the 3rd flight and then takes them to the play-offs that same season, wins the play-offs and only narrowly goes down didn't seem too bad at the time. Billy Davies sounded good as well but it sounded he would have also had baggae. Peter Taylor, bloody good coach but out of his depth a Premier League level. We may have stayed up with Curbs but I still feel it would have been our toughest Premiership year since coming back in 2000.
I don't think it's necessarily the case that there was no suitable candidate. Personally I think the absence of one identified was the problem. In my view we ought to have done our homework long before announcing Curbs' departure.
I do, however, feel that Curbishley would have spent that money a hell of a lot more wisely than Mr Dowie.
The one thing you can be certain about in professional football is the consequences of your judgements are there for all to see. On our rise to the Premier League I doubt for a club of our size there was a higher profile trio than Murray, Varney and Curbishley - the club was held up as the very model of prudent success. Sadly as with so many working partnerships sooner or later the individuals involved no longer shared a common interest/ agenda.
Equally after a protracted period of success it is not uncommon for those involved to believe their own headlines. I could argue all three participants suffered the consequences as a result.
Murrays role in our fall from grace is indeed there for all to see both the succession of unsuccessful appointees and the multiple parties brought to the table to keep the club from financially failing altogether.
It is clear a major issue arose under the last regime. None of us as supporters were, nor should be, privy to the full detail of the issue. It was an internal issue. Anybody who has served on a company board or executive will know conflicts quite often heated conflicts can arise. The point is what happens in the boardroom stays in the boardroom. As with any collective you have a choice to follow the "party line" or walk away. The problem with the latter option is you only get to do it once. At which point you are "outside the tent pissing in".
The people involved clearly feel very strongly about the issue and the actions taken but under the scored earth policy pursued by the previous major investors you can well imagine the cliché of "unless and until you have walked in their shoes" coming into play almost on a daily basis. For those who seem to wish to keep the issue in the public eye - it is a one sided argument - would anyone really expect a club director to discuss such issues in public? Companies are bound by confidentiality agreements for a reason.
As for the future I can but refer to my own experience. I worked for a very talented CEO, who when appointing new executives would often focus on candidates who were in effect "drinking in the last chance saloon" on the basis they will have learned significantly more from their mistakes than their successes.
Richard Murray has a wealth of experience and contacts in the industry, which other than Chris Parkes, would otherwise not be available to the new ownership. For that background alone he has a role to play in our future. Like him or not he has travelled the same journey we have over the past decade or more. I have no problem with him continuing that journey.
Grapevine, the problem has been that after the takeover Richard Murray continued to dig out those who have left the club, publicly and privately, and inevitably this has attracted rebuttals. It's hardly the latter's fault if RM won't leave it alone. It's not been Varney and Kavanagh going to meetings and talking to fans about Murray, has it? And it never has been.
From my own perspective, Murray is still in credit for his contribution to Charlton over the years, but whether it is tenable for him to remain on the board will be a function of how events unfold and whether he has any influence on them. We don't know that yet and therefore I think this thread is more destructive than useful.
The one thing you can be certain about in professional football is the consequences of your judgements are there for all to see. On our rise to the Premier League I doubt for a club of our size there was a higher profile trio than Murray, Varney and Curbishley - the club was held up as the very model of prudent success. Sadly as with so many working partnerships sooner or later the individuals involved no longer shared a common interest/ agenda.
Equally after a protracted period of success it is not uncommon for those involved to believe their own headlines. I could argue all three participants suffered the consequences as a result.
Murrays role in our fall from grace is indeed there for all to see both the succession of unsuccessful appointees and the multiple parties brought to the table to keep the club from financially failing altogether.
It is clear a major issue arose under the last regime. None of us as supporters were, nor should be, privy to the full detail of the issue. It was an internal issue. Anybody who has served on a company board or executive will know conflicts quite often heated conflicts can arise. The point is what happens in the boardroom stays in the boardroom. As with any collective you have a choice to follow the "party line" or walk away. The problem with the latter option is you only get to do it once. At which point you are "outside the tent pissing in".
The people involved clearly feel very strongly about the issue and the actions taken but under the scored earth policy pursued by the previous major investors you can well imagine the cliché of "unless and until you have walked in their shoes" coming into play almost on a daily basis.
For those who seem to wish to keep the issue in the public eye - it is a one sided argument - would anyone really expect a club director to discuss such issues in public? Companies are bound by confidentiality agreements for a reason.
As for the future I can but refer to my own experience. I worked for a very talented CEO, who when appointing new executives would often focus on candidates who were in effect "drinking in the last chance saloon" on the basis they will have learned significantly more from their mistakes than their successes.
Richard Murray has a wealth of experience and contacts in the industry, which other than Chris Parkes, would otherwise not be available to the new ownership. For that background alone he has a role to play in our future. Like him or not he has travelled the same journey we have over the past decade or more. I have no problem with him continuing that journey.
Grapevine, the problem has been that after the takeover Richard Murray continued to dig out those who have left the club, publicly and privately, and inevitably this has attracted rebuttals. It's hardly the latter's fault if RM won't leave it alone.
It's not been Varney and Kavanagh going to meetings and talking to fans about Murray, has it? And it never has been.
It's difficult if the question is asked though isn't it?
Ironically these are, exactly, the kind of things that fans want to hear about. One of Richard's biggest draws at events is that he will answer most questions; he will disclose things that many other people wouldn't.
Assuming that he hasn't told any lies (and I'm not saying that he has or he hasn't) his views and opinions are what fans want to hear. If you (and I'm not specifically aiming this at you AB) don't like his views and opinions then, frankly, it's tough. If he tells lies, that can be proven to be lies, then there are various legal actions available to whomever wants to dispute what he is saying.
However, if fans ask him to explain something, and he does, and it is critical of someone (like it was of Dowie and Pardew - and you've said rather uncomplimentary things about the latter AB) then I don't think that is grounds for him to be vilified, personally.
As some of the comments were about friends of yours AB I can understand how you would be more offended than the average fan (and I'd feel the same if someone was having a go at a friend of mine) but if a club representative is going to 'share' stories then we have to accept that sometimes they will "dig out" former colleagues.
The one thing you can be certain about in professional football is the consequences of your judgements are there for all to see. On our rise to the Premier League I doubt for a club of our size there was a higher profile trio than Murray, Varney and Curbishley - the club was held up as the very model of prudent success. Sadly as with so many working partnerships sooner or later the individuals involved no longer shared a common interest/ agenda.
Equally after a protracted period of success it is not uncommon for those involved to believe their own headlines. I could argue all three participants suffered the consequences as a result.
Murrays role in our fall from grace is indeed there for all to see both the succession of unsuccessful appointees and the multiple parties brought to the table to keep the club from financially failing altogether.
It is clear a major issue arose under the last regime. None of us as supporters were, nor should be, privy to the full detail of the issue. It was an internal issue. Anybody who has served on a company board or executive will know conflicts quite often heated conflicts can arise. The point is what happens in the boardroom stays in the boardroom. As with any collective you have a choice to follow the "party line" or walk away. The problem with the latter option is you only get to do it once. At which point you are "outside the tent pissing in".
The people involved clearly feel very strongly about the issue and the actions taken but under the scored earth policy pursued by the previous major investors you can well imagine the cliché of "unless and until you have walked in their shoes" coming into play almost on a daily basis. For those who seem to wish to keep the issue in the public eye - it is a one sided argument - would anyone really expect a club director to discuss such issues in public? Companies are bound by confidentiality agreements for a reason.
As for the future I can but refer to my own experience. I worked for a very talented CEO, who when appointing new executives would often focus on candidates who were in effect "drinking in the last chance saloon" on the basis they will have learned significantly more from their mistakes than their successes.
Richard Murray has a wealth of experience and contacts in the industry, which other than Chris Parkes, would otherwise not be available to the new ownership. For that background alone he has a role to play in our future. Like him or not he has travelled the same journey we have over the past decade or more. I have no problem with him continuing that journey.
Grapevine, the problem has been that after the takeover Richard Murray continued to dig out those who have left the club, publicly and privately, and inevitably this has attracted rebuttals. It's hardly the latter's fault if RM won't leave it alone. It's not been Varney and Kavanagh going to meetings and talking to fans about Murray, has it? And it never has been.
From my own perspective, Murray is still in credit for his contribution to Charlton over the years, but whether it is tenable for him to remain on the board will be a function of how events unfold and whether he has any influence on them. We don't know that yet and therefore I think this thread is more destructive than useful.
But surely it is for him to decide - not us - as we don't appoint a board member anymore. The question isn't what do we think of him - but whether his position is untenable? I don't really care what he does - and I don't mean that as a criticism. I acknowledge the good things he did for the club and recognise that the bad things were done for the right reason. As fans, we are less interested in him turning on mates within the club than you might be Airman. I don't think he can have much influence - RD will do what he wants- he does everywhere else- and RM isn't going to stop him!
The one thing you can be certain about in professional football is the consequences of your judgements are there for all to see. On our rise to the Premier League I doubt for a club of our size there was a higher profile trio than Murray, Varney and Curbishley - the club was held up as the very model of prudent success. Sadly as with so many working partnerships sooner or later the individuals involved no longer shared a common interest/ agenda.
Equally after a protracted period of success it is not uncommon for those involved to believe their own headlines. I could argue all three participants suffered the consequences as a result.
Murrays role in our fall from grace is indeed there for all to see both the succession of unsuccessful appointees and the multiple parties brought to the table to keep the club from financially failing altogether.
It is clear a major issue arose under the last regime. None of us as supporters were, nor should be, privy to the full detail of the issue. It was an internal issue. Anybody who has served on a company board or executive will know conflicts quite often heated conflicts can arise. The point is what happens in the boardroom stays in the boardroom. As with any collective you have a choice to follow the "party line" or walk away. The problem with the latter option is you only get to do it once. At which point you are "outside the tent pissing in".
The people involved clearly feel very strongly about the issue and the actions taken but under the scored earth policy pursued by the previous major investors you can well imagine the cliché of "unless and until you have walked in their shoes" coming into play almost on a daily basis. For those who seem to wish to keep the issue in the public eye - it is a one sided argument - would anyone really expect a club director to discuss such issues in public? Companies are bound by confidentiality agreements for a reason.
As for the future I can but refer to my own experience. I worked for a very talented CEO, who when appointing new executives would often focus on candidates who were in effect "drinking in the last chance saloon" on the basis they will have learned significantly more from their mistakes than their successes.
Richard Murray has a wealth of experience and contacts in the industry, which other than Chris Parkes, would otherwise not be available to the new ownership. For that background alone he has a role to play in our future. Like him or not he has travelled the same journey we have over the past decade or more. I have no problem with him continuing that journey.
Grapevine, the problem has been that after the takeover Richard Murray continued to dig out those who have left the club, publicly and privately, and inevitably this has attracted rebuttals. It's hardly the latter's fault if RM won't leave it alone. It's not been Varney and Kavanagh going to meetings and talking to fans about Murray, has it? And it never has been.
From my own perspective, Murray is still in credit for his contribution to Charlton over the years, but whether it is tenable for him to remain on the board will be a function of how events unfold and whether he has any influence on them. We don't know that yet and therefore I think this thread is more destructive than useful.
But surely it is for him to decide - not us - as we don't appoint a board member anymore. The question isn't what do we think of him - but whether his position is untenable? I don't really care what he does - and I don't mean that as a criticism. I acknowledge the good things he did for the club and recognise that the bad things were done for the right reason. As fans, we are less interested in him turning on mates within the club than you might be Airman. I don't think he can have much influence - RD will do what he wants- he does everywhere else- and RM isn't going to stop him!
I don't disagree. That's why I don't think this thread serves any useful purpose.
KHA misses the point, I think, that if RM "digs out" people in public and uses misleading information to do so, as he has, he is not an innocent party. There are plenty of pertinent questions that could be asked at meetings that Murray wouldn't answer, truthfully or otherwise. Neither do his attacks on Varney or misleading statements about other staff achieve anything but damage to his own credibility and further discussion of the issues. Nobody has ever blamed RM for the staff departures. He might have behaved differently in response to them, but he didn't and when the Belgians arrived the matter was over. The fact that it rumbles on is entirely of his doing.
Comments
First the knives are out because a club legend is being "forced out", only it then comes to light that might not quite be the case. Then stuff is said about another club legend who may or may not be retiring, but things are posted without permission and without checking the facts first.
Then the knives are out because there is no statement about Powell. Then they're out again because some idiot addressed a letter incorrectly, which is clearly all a conspiracy. Then when a statement comes out on the club site the knives come out again because there's an opportunity to have another dig about what Murray has said.
For the record I never saw Sam Bartram play, but it doesn't stop me remembering his playing days fondly as I have heard so much about them. That's all.
Get over yourselves.
Seen quite a few clips on TV.
Given the tide against Richard is turning significantly for the worse - even on here amongst perhaps on average the most pro group of supporters, I think it is probably time he went - although I understand and respect what Prague is saying.
Some have called him a Lord Haw Haw figure. I don't think that is a correct historical analogy. For me I would say that he is more the Charlton equivalent to Marshall Petain. A man who went from national hero to a being cashiered for treason, by negotiating to try and save his country. His genuine love for France led him down a disasterous route of collaboration from which he would never recover his former hero status.
I still have some investment in RD to turn our club around. What is true is that what we had as a club in our pomp during the last 20 years is gone forever. For his own sake I believe it is time Richard moved on now. He would go with mine and many others sincere thanks. I say that with a sinking feeling in my stomach because what he would leave behind is uncertainty which I suspect makes us all feel queasy.
But RM was brave enough to appoint Curbs in the first place so his credit outweighs his negatives although he has done his best to even that up !!!!
As others said I didn't believe the Colin Powell reference was correct but we all know the sentiment of the article was genuine and that's all that really matters where Colin Powell is concerned .
Perhaps Murray wanted more value from the deal but the thing is that to get value from Charlton equity you need the club to be going in the right direction and you need deep pockets - he came out better than Jordan and Goldberg.
It is my belief that Charlton as an entity will only have real tradeable value once it can reach the play-offs which funnily enough coincides with the interests of the fans.
We are extremely fortunate that we now find ourselves back in the Championship with a much better financial position and a chance to develop a young squad. Perhaps we are a long way from the play-offs or perhaps we can have a crack in 2015-16?
That choice is with Duchatelet and the new management team on and off the pitch... All the rest is simply noise.
Murray is still in the game as chairman of the board and that's why people talk to him and about him.
Trying to be charitable...
Admin someone's hacked Airmans account
You left at 5 - 1. I remember seeing you sneaking out.
That is the title of the thread.
So without discussing Murrays past record of success and failure with the club, is his current position untenable?
Seems to me he is effectively impotent and that he is kept on as a sop to the fans as a link to the good old days. Can he really influence where the club is going and if not why bother having him there?
In the short term Katrien (and therefore RD) have put any such discussions on hold. Their argument is that they want to start such discussions once they have had a chance to show us in close season what their concrete plans look like. RM has no choice but to follow that dictum for now, since he has a non-executive role. And that is a perfectly normal situation to be in. If we get to August and no such dialogue is emerging, that is the time to consider his position. But I am sure he won't need threads like this, to prod him into doing so. Unfortunately such a thread, and some of the spiteful comments from people who have never met him, or think they know a lot more than they do, will only cause him to ask whether he should bother. And then if he decides not, the outlook for dialogue is far worse than it is now.
Just to be clear, I do not include @Airman Brown in the list of people whose comments piss me off. He and Richard worked together for many years and things happen. I respect his viewpoint. He and I have often discussed RM,and PV, and I am sure we'll continue to do so. As for others, I think it is wrong to attack RM with comments based on vague innuendo. "Where I come from" you either come right out with your concrete accusations, or you shut up. That said, I don't pretend to know everything, or even 10% of all the things that have gone on behind the scenes in the last few years, so anyone who thinks I'm seriously misguided is welcome to set me straight in a PM.
Clearly things spiralled out of control post-relegation and we have never really stabilised for any length of time since then and RM has had to break bread with people he probably would never have dealt with if he had a choice in the matter.
For me it's gutting to hear of the break down on his relationship with PV, they were a great team who did an amazing job for so long and I hope one day they can put things right.
RM has got things wrong but the guy has done amazing things for the club and for that he deserves respect - but that does not mean he is above criticism by any means.
I think the bolding of the word 'no choice' speaks volumes.
Not denigrating what has gone on previously and know nothing about his relationship with PV so can't comment on that, it just seems to me he will be marginalised even come the new season
As far as I can tell, he respects their current stance. I kind of get it, too. If it isn't happening by August you may be right that he has been "marginalised", but he will have worked that out for himself. Behind the scenes he is lobbying for dialogue, this much I know to be true.
I don't see why he can't 'evolve' his position and still make a worthwhile contribution. Sure he is not calling the shots now - he has done that and I would suggest that under his ownership we had some very good years. Now he has a smaller role, but that doesn't make his position untenable, in my view.
Ignoring what went on with PV and SK and AB and WP, I think he has always been upfront about his position. I've heard him say (in person) that his 'power' and 'influence' was minimal with Slater and Jimenez as he only held 10% of the shares. He was, I believe, on hand to lend the club money, but other than that he had no real influence. From things he's said it would appear that he was, to some extent, in agreement with some of the actions that MS and TJ undertook, but in any event I don't think there was much he could have done. I know that AB doesn't share that view (that he could have done something) and I'm not suggesting that I am right and he is wrong, but he had agreed to sell the club on and, therefore, gave up the right to make all the decisions.
His role, now, is different. I know that is a weird comparison but no one is suggesting that we should move Chris Solly on because he wasn't in a position to dictate to the board and share the club's plans with fans. I suspect that all the players know things that we would like to be told but they don't tell us. That is the way it is - we will be told what those that make the decisions want us to know when they want to tell us.
I am 43 and I don't 'answer' to my parents like I did when I was 10. That doesn't make my Mum and Dad's position untenable, it doesn't mean that they are unable to make recommendations (sometimes without being asked) as to what I should do. My Mum and Dad don't make all the decisions in my life, they used to, but their position has evolved. That doesn't mean that they should step back having looked after me during my childhood so as to avoid being associated with what I do in adulthood.
I don't see how RM's position should be black or white. He is making a contribution (I assume) and I suspect that the club benefits from it - all be it in a smaller way than in the past.
I think if we hound him out for his past actions and/or the lack of authority he now has, we will come to regret it, and not because of what he has done for the club, but for what he will do going forward.
Equally after a protracted period of success it is not uncommon for those involved to believe their own headlines. I could argue all three participants suffered the consequences as a result.
Murrays role in our fall from grace is indeed there for all to see both the succession of unsuccessful appointees and the multiple parties brought to the table to keep the club from financially failing altogether.
It is clear a major issue arose under the last regime. None of us as supporters were, nor should be, privy to the full detail of the issue. It was an internal issue. Anybody who has served on a company board or executive will know conflicts quite often heated conflicts can arise. The point is what happens in the boardroom stays in the boardroom. As with any collective you have a choice to follow the "party line" or walk away. The problem with the latter option is you only get to do it once. At which point you are "outside the tent pissing in".
The people involved clearly feel very strongly about the issue and the actions taken but under the scored earth policy pursued by the previous major investors you can well imagine the cliché of "unless and until you have walked in their shoes" coming into play almost on a daily basis.
For those who seem to wish to keep the issue in the public eye - it is a one sided argument - would anyone really expect a club director to discuss such issues in public? Companies are bound by confidentiality agreements for a reason.
As for the future I can but refer to my own experience. I worked for a very talented CEO, who when appointing new executives would often focus on candidates who were in effect "drinking in the last chance saloon" on the basis they will have learned significantly more from their mistakes than their successes.
Richard Murray has a wealth of experience and contacts in the industry, which other than Chris Parkes, would otherwise not be available to the new ownership. For that background alone he has a role to play in our future. Like him or not he has travelled the same journey we have over the past decade or more. I have no problem with him continuing that journey.
And, leaving aside the history, that's good enough for me.
RM has had his successes and has overseen some disasters too. Clearly there are some things that haven't impressed some people. It doesn't mean he won't be part of success again, even if he was the most detestable person on earth (which I'm quite sure he isn't) and as @Grapevine49 rightly says it's hardly uncommon for the most successful people to have learned from the times when things went wrong. Add that learning to RM's successes and I see one hugely valuable man indeed.
Let's leave aside the unnecessary (and unnecessarily) cheap shots shall we?
I do, however, feel that Curbishley would have spent that money a hell of a lot more wisely than Mr Dowie.
From my own perspective, Murray is still in credit for his contribution to Charlton over the years, but whether it is tenable for him to remain on the board will be a function of how events unfold and whether he has any influence on them. We don't know that yet and therefore I think this thread is more destructive than useful.
Ironically these are, exactly, the kind of things that fans want to hear about. One of Richard's biggest draws at events is that he will answer most questions; he will disclose things that many other people wouldn't.
Assuming that he hasn't told any lies (and I'm not saying that he has or he hasn't) his views and opinions are what fans want to hear. If you (and I'm not specifically aiming this at you AB) don't like his views and opinions then, frankly, it's tough. If he tells lies, that can be proven to be lies, then there are various legal actions available to whomever wants to dispute what he is saying.
However, if fans ask him to explain something, and he does, and it is critical of someone (like it was of Dowie and Pardew - and you've said rather uncomplimentary things about the latter AB) then I don't think that is grounds for him to be vilified, personally.
As some of the comments were about friends of yours AB I can understand how you would be more offended than the average fan (and I'd feel the same if someone was having a go at a friend of mine) but if a club representative is going to 'share' stories then we have to accept that sometimes they will "dig out" former colleagues.
KHA misses the point, I think, that if RM "digs out" people in public and uses misleading information to do so, as he has, he is not an innocent party. There are plenty of pertinent questions that could be asked at meetings that Murray wouldn't answer, truthfully or otherwise. Neither do his attacks on Varney or misleading statements about other staff achieve anything but damage to his own credibility and further discussion of the issues. Nobody has ever blamed RM for the staff departures. He might have behaved differently in response to them, but he didn't and when the Belgians arrived the matter was over. The fact that it rumbles on is entirely of his doing.