He may have taken the decision that he was/is best in there holding his nose. We don't know, but what is probably sadder from his perspective is that most of us don't care!
Not sure from the above if you are still pushing this "chairman" issue, but the point is that he is now anon-exec chairman because he no longer has equity. Therefore he is there while RD and he agree it is worthwhile.
Like I said, it is quite common in business. For example, the chairman of Chelsea is some American lawyer called Bruce Buck. Now, do you think he so much as says "howdy" to ordinary fans without the express approval of that great football fan and UK taxpayer, Roman Abramovic?
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.
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.
I disagree. In my opinion I very much doubt the majority of fans or even the majority of CL readers have heard RM dig yourself, Varney or Kavanagh out through any medium. I would expect the only reason most CL readers are aware of it at all, is through your numerous references to it.
Mundell, interesting comments but why necessarily liquidation? Admin not pretty but other clubs have survived it some have prospered.
There is also the matter of the friendly debt packaged with the club, could that not have put buyers off? Mainly because it was secured on the only assets valley/training ground?
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.
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.
I disagree. In my opinion I very much doubt the majority of fans or even the majority of CL readers have heard RM dig yourself, Varney or Kavanagh out through any medium. I would expect the only reason most CL readers are aware of it at all, is through your numerous references to it.
"That said, overall KM came over better than I anticipated and Powell did what he does best to his legion of fans. Murray came across as very sanctimonious. Mocking the VIP who felt they had lost out financially under the terms of the VIP scheme, blaming Varney for overseeing the previous takeover and then stating that when Varney fell out with Jimenez and departed, a lot of his supporters had subsequently left the club as well (including those who are very vocal ie AB), which he felt was not such a bad thing. All very unnecessary and so wrong in my eyes."
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.
I'm not sure I missed the point, exactly, I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
I'm not suggesting that RM is innocent or guilty of anything. We will have to agree to disagree as to the result of his 'attacks'. I'm not convinced, personally if it damages his own credibility - especially as he would, naturally, present it in such a way as he would look like he was the 'good guy' and others less so, which is what happened.
As for the pertinent questions that he wouldn't answer, that would require someone to ask them. I do remember you floating a question on a previous thread before he came to Bromley last year - needless to say the question was too offensive (in my view) for anyone to ask it - however he did read it on here and he did, in fact, answer most of it. Clearly I will never know if he answers all questions 'truthfully' as you suggested he might not but the whole point of these type of meetings has been that he shares information with 'friends'. There is little point in putting these events on if they are going to be so aggressive that RM wouldn't come again. Equally he is unlikely to refuse to answer any questions or the fans would stop coming along.
I don't suppose I'm unique, but I am significantly more interested in the subjects we are talking about being aired at these sort of meetings. In truth (rightly or wrongly) there is little benefit in turning up at these events and reading what might well have been on the web site. Thus I have no problem with RM discussing these subjects. I can understand how those involved would not feel the same - and this applies to players who might have had things revealed about them, as much as it applies to previous board members and non-footballing employees.
Whether it is professional/respectful/morally acceptable enough is not my concern, to be truthful with you. I like a bit of gossip, and even though I might not, personally, make such revealing statements about my colleagues and employees it doesn't prevent me from turning up to hear others do it.
I'm not going to discuss what was shared but I will say that my view of certain people was changed in light of some of the revelations. I can understand how those involved would want to rebut some of the 'allegations' but as I say they are well within their rights to do so - assuming it doesn't affect a confidential agreement that they signed.
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.
I'm not sure I missed the point, exactly, I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
I'm not suggesting that RM is innocent or guilty of anything. We will have to agree to disagree as to the result of his 'attacks'. I'm not convinced, personally if it damages his own credibility - especially as he would, naturally, present it in such a way as he would look like he was the 'good guy' and others less so, which is what happened.
As for the pertinent questions that he wouldn't answer, that would require someone to ask them. I do remember you floating a question on a previous thread before he came to Bromley last year - needless to say the question was too offensive (in my view) for anyone to ask it - however he did read it on here and he did, in fact, answer most of it. Clearly I will never know if he answers all questions 'truthfully' as you suggested he might not but the whole point of these type of meetings has been that he shares information with 'friends'. There is little point in putting these events on if they are going to be so aggressive that RM wouldn't come again. Equally he is unlikely to refuse to answer any questions or the fans would stop coming along.
I don't suppose I'm unique, but I am significantly more interested in the subjects we are talking about being aired at these sort of meetings. In truth (rightly or wrongly) there is little benefit in turning up at these events and reading what might well have been on the web site. Thus I have no problem with RM discussing these subjects. I can understand how those involved would not feel the same - and this applies to players who might have had things revealed about them, as much as it applies to previous board members and non-footballing employees.
Whether it is professional/respectful/morally acceptable enough is not my concern, to be truthful with you. I like a bit of gossip, and even though I might not, personally, make such revealing statements about my colleagues and employees it doesn't prevent me from turning up to hear others do it.
I'm not going to discuss what was shared but I will say that my view of certain people was changed in light of some of the revelations. I can understand how those involved would want to rebut some of the 'allegations' but as I say they are well within their rights to do so - assuming it doesn't affect a confidential agreement that they signed.
And this of course is the point. Confidentiality agreements are not unilateral. Murray as a director of the club is party to them. Not only is he at risk of breaching them, but if what he is saying about third parties is not accurate then he puts those affected in an impossible position. His remarks about the TJ/MS takeover demonstrate to me that he is not a reliable witness. If that applies to what he will say on the record, how much more do you think it applies to what he will whisper in your ear?
Murray has been offered the opportunity to debate his comments about third parties in public where they can have a right of reply. Unsurprisingly, he hasn't taken up the offer.
Please, somebody bring in some new players so that we can get back on track, and put a stop to personal arguments.
I'm happy to move on to talk about signing players but I don't consider this thread an argument, it's a discussion, and I'm learning as much from other people's posts as I believe I'm sharing about my thoughts with mine.
Please, somebody bring in some new players so that we can get back on track, and put a stop to personal arguments.
I'm happy to move on to talk about signing players but I don't consider this thread an argument, it's a discussion, and I'm learning as much from other people's posts as I believe I'm sharing about my thoughts with mine.
Agreed.
Let me put something else to you. Supposing for example that no confidentiality agreement exists in relation to the relevant period and you are a very senior and long-serving former employee who is the constant target of personal attacks from your former boss, questioning your integrity and motivation, but mostly made in private or off the record and reported back to you through multiple trusted third parties. You become aware that it is starting colour people's judgement of you, personal and professional.
You know what is being said is at best seriously misleading and missing salient facts, so you offer to put all the issues in the public domain so they can be judged objectively, but to no avail. You bite your tongue for a long while because you don't want to damage the club or your former boss. Ultimately, would you be able to keep quiet if the attacks continued? And if not would the subsequent explosion be of benefit to anyone?
A sense of injustice and being vilified will rouse anyone to refute the allegations. Whether or not anyone is listening is another matter but I prefer to know 'the truth' in any given situation. I can imagine it is very very hard to be heard above the maddened crowd. A sense of injustice does tend to fester, and yes, there will also be bitterness. At some stage all injured parties are just going to have to accept that their time is up and very few people care. ( Remember Heath?) it's the law of diminishing returns. I only know that there are honourable people I value who have been badly wounded and there is nothing I can do about it.
That said, overall KM came over better than I anticipated and Powell did what he does best to his legion of fans. Murray came across as very sanctimonious. Mocking the VIP who felt they had lost out financially under the terms of the VIP scheme, blaming Varney for overseeing the previous takeover and then stating that when Varney fell out with Jimenez and departed, a lot of his supporters had subsequently left the club as well (including those who are very vocal ie AB), which he felt was not such a bad thing. All very unnecessary and so wrong in my eyes.
Once again, Murray has things to say about other people in a safe environment where the assertions he makes won't be challenged. What was Murray's position on Jimenez and Slater when Varney left the club? Not what he would like you to think now, and he's no doubt forgotten that there is written evidence of that.
There never was a Varney camp and a Murray camp until he betrayed the people who'd supported him personally and professionally for up to 20 years. He knows that Varney and Kavanagh left for wholly professional reasons and that he shared their concerns. He just didn't have the balls to make a stand.
Whatever he says now about the staff, he employed them and then he watched - and in Varney's case participated - as those people were bullied, humiliated and cheated out of their jobs, which he now says has the advantage of saving money. Nice work, Richard.
And in this thread, you've raised the stakes with the following post.
Please, somebody bring in some new players so that we can get back on track, and put a stop to personal arguments.
I'm happy to move on to talk about signing players but I don't consider this thread an argument, it's a discussion, and I'm learning as much from other people's posts as I believe I'm sharing about my thoughts with mine.
Agreed.
Let me put something else to you. Supposing for example that no confidentiality agreement exists in relation to the relevant period and you are a very senior and long-serving former employee who is the constant target of personal attacks from your former boss, questioning your integrity and motivation, but mostly made in private or off the record and reported back to you through multiple trusted third parties. You become aware that it is starting colour people's judgement of you, personal and professional.
You know what is being said is at best seriously misleading and missing salient facts, so you offer to put all the issues in the public domain so they can be judged objectively, but to no avail. You bite your tongue for a long while because you don't want to damage the club or your former boss. Ultimately, would you be able to keep quiet if the attacks continued? And if not would the subsequent explosion be of benefit to anyone?
IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE
I don't want to hear the rights and wrongs of what has gone on when all it can do is damage the Club. What's it going to achieve? Absolutely feck all, except someone feels better that 500 people on a forum have heard 'their side of the arguement'.
We should be looking forward and trying to develop relationships with the current owner, not navel gazing about who said what to whom. I'm worried that there are plenty of skeletons in the closet during the previous tenure that can do us no good. Yet time and time again, subtle hints and innuendos are being posted on here and in VOTV.
We get it, RM isn't the kind friendly benefactor he once was. We don't like it, but it's a fact of life. At the moment he's our primary link with RD and KM and we need to develop that, not knock him at every opportunity because he didn't fight your corner.
I'm sure your next article about BK isn't going to hold back any punches - but will you ask him to comment before publication? What you're accusing RM of now is no different from the previous printed articles of accusations, mocking and humiliation you've piled on BK in your periodical.
Yet again AB, you want to have it both ways. This is the third occasion this year. Please mate, for your own sanity STOP IT. Move on.
Thought about this a bit on the train home last night. It is worth remembering this thread was from quite a few months ago now, the situation evolves. Whilst in a lot of cases those for or against have their own personal / group agendas impacting their stance, reigniting the same issues ultmitately helps no one. @Addickted is completely right in what he posts.
I'm sure events / incidents will occur in future that will warrent re-visiting questions like this. But for now i agree this is probably in the wider best interests being put to bed eh?
That said, overall KM came over better than I anticipated and Powell did what he does best to his legion of fans. Murray came across as very sanctimonious. Mocking the VIP who felt they had lost out financially under the terms of the VIP scheme, blaming Varney for overseeing the previous takeover and then stating that when Varney fell out with Jimenez and departed, a lot of his supporters had subsequently left the club as well (including those who are very vocal ie AB), which he felt was not such a bad thing. All very unnecessary and so wrong in my eyes.
Once again, Murray has things to say about other people in a safe environment where the assertions he makes won't be challenged. What was Murray's position on Jimenez and Slater when Varney left the club? Not what he would like you to think now, and he's no doubt forgotten that there is written evidence of that.
There never was a Varney camp and a Murray camp until he betrayed the people who'd supported him personally and professionally for up to 20 years. He knows that Varney and Kavanagh left for wholly professional reasons and that he shared their concerns. He just didn't have the balls to make a stand.
Whatever he says now about the staff, he employed them and then he watched - and in Varney's case participated - as those people were bullied, humiliated and cheated out of their jobs, which he now says has the advantage of saving money. Nice work, Richard.
And in this thread, you've raised the stakes with the following post.
Please, somebody bring in some new players so that we can get back on track, and put a stop to personal arguments.
I'm happy to move on to talk about signing players but I don't consider this thread an argument, it's a discussion, and I'm learning as much from other people's posts as I believe I'm sharing about my thoughts with mine.
Agreed.
Let me put something else to you. Supposing for example that no confidentiality agreement exists in relation to the relevant period and you are a very senior and long-serving former employee who is the constant target of personal attacks from your former boss, questioning your integrity and motivation, but mostly made in private or off the record and reported back to you through multiple trusted third parties. You become aware that it is starting colour people's judgement of you, personal and professional.
You know what is being said is at best seriously misleading and missing salient facts, so you offer to put all the issues in the public domain so they can be judged objectively, but to no avail. You bite your tongue for a long while because you don't want to damage the club or your former boss. Ultimately, would you be able to keep quiet if the attacks continued? And if not would the subsequent explosion be of benefit to anyone?
IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE
I don't want to hear the rights and wrongs of what has gone on when all it can do is damage the Club. What's it going to achieve? Absolutely feck all, except someone feels better that 500 people on a forum have heard 'their side of the arguement'.
We should be looking forward and trying to develop relationships with the current owner, not navel gazing about who said what to whom. I'm worried that there are plenty of skeletons in the closet during the previous tenure that can do us no good. Yet time and time again, subtle hints and innuendos are being posted on here and in VOTV.
We get it, RM isn't the kind friendly benefactor he once was. We don't like it, but it's a fact of life. At the moment he's our primary link with RD and KM and we need to develop that, not knock him at every opportunity because he didn't fight your corner.
I'm sure your next article about BK isn't going to hold back any punches - but will you ask him to comment before publication? What you're accusing RM of now is no different from the previous printed articles of accusations, mocking and humiliation you've piled on BK in your periodical.
Yet again AB, you want to have it both ways. This is the third occasion this year. Please mate, for your own sanity STOP IT. Move on.
Whatever I say it is on the record, published openly and people can challenge the veracity of it and rebut it with contradictory facts and opinion. That's quite a big difference. Actually, I agree this debate is destructive and we need to look forward not back. I just think that needs to apply on all sides.
Truth and reconciliation is the order of the day. Get the dressings off the wounds, see how deep they are, get them clean, and some antiseptic, clean bandages, and hope they heal. The tragedy is that if a loyal Charlton person is being slagged off without a right of reply then we all suffer, especially if expertise is ignored because of it. Richard Murray is roundly recognised as being in credit overall (despite Dowie!), and there ought to be a way of marshalling positive forces interested in the good of Charlton from a clean slate.
That said, overall KM came over better than I anticipated and Powell did what he does best to his legion of fans. Murray came across as very sanctimonious. Mocking the VIP who felt they had lost out financially under the terms of the VIP scheme, blaming Varney for overseeing the previous takeover and then stating that when Varney fell out with Jimenez and departed, a lot of his supporters had subsequently left the club as well (including those who are very vocal ie AB), which he felt was not such a bad thing. All very unnecessary and so wrong in my eyes.
Once again, Murray has things to say about other people in a safe environment where the assertions he makes won't be challenged. What was Murray's position on Jimenez and Slater when Varney left the club? Not what he would like you to think now, and he's no doubt forgotten that there is written evidence of that.
There never was a Varney camp and a Murray camp until he betrayed the people who'd supported him personally and professionally for up to 20 years. He knows that Varney and Kavanagh left for wholly professional reasons and that he shared their concerns. He just didn't have the balls to make a stand.
Whatever he says now about the staff, he employed them and then he watched - and in Varney's case participated - as those people were bullied, humiliated and cheated out of their jobs, which he now says has the advantage of saving money. Nice work, Richard.
And in this thread, you've raised the stakes with the following post.
Please, somebody bring in some new players so that we can get back on track, and put a stop to personal arguments.
I'm happy to move on to talk about signing players but I don't consider this thread an argument, it's a discussion, and I'm learning as much from other people's posts as I believe I'm sharing about my thoughts with mine.
Agreed.
Let me put something else to you. Supposing for example that no confidentiality agreement exists in relation to the relevant period and you are a very senior and long-serving former employee who is the constant target of personal attacks from your former boss, questioning your integrity and motivation, but mostly made in private or off the record and reported back to you through multiple trusted third parties. You become aware that it is starting colour people's judgement of you, personal and professional.
You know what is being said is at best seriously misleading and missing salient facts, so you offer to put all the issues in the public domain so they can be judged objectively, but to no avail. You bite your tongue for a long while because you don't want to damage the club or your former boss. Ultimately, would you be able to keep quiet if the attacks continued? And if not would the subsequent explosion be of benefit to anyone?
IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE
I don't want to hear the rights and wrongs of what has gone on when all it can do is damage the Club. What's it going to achieve? Absolutely feck all, except someone feels better that 500 people on a forum have heard 'their side of the arguement'.
We should be looking forward and trying to develop relationships with the current owner, not navel gazing about who said what to whom. I'm worried that there are plenty of skeletons in the closet during the previous tenure that can do us no good. Yet time and time again, subtle hints and innuendos are being posted on here and in VOTV.
We get it, RM isn't the kind friendly benefactor he once was. We don't like it, but it's a fact of life. At the moment he's our primary link with RD and KM and we need to develop that, not knock him at every opportunity because he didn't fight your corner.
I'm sure your next article about BK isn't going to hold back any punches - but will you ask him to comment before publication? What you're accusing RM of now is no different from the previous printed articles of accusations, mocking and humiliation you've piled on BK in your periodical.
Yet again AB, you want to have it both ways. This is the third occasion this year. Please mate, for your own sanity STOP IT. Move on.
A valid point re BK (formerly of Arsenal FC).
There is a fundamental difference in the two situations though.
I suggest that if BK expressed a right of reply then it is as dead a cert as a Peanuts Grand National tip that space would be available in Voice of the Valley.
Airman does not have to persuade anyone of BK's gross incompetence. It is there for all to see. RM said at the VIP meeting that he thinks Ben is doing a good job. I would suggest this shows he has totally lost it.
Airman does not have to persuade anyone of BK's gross incompetence. It is there for all to see. RM said at the VIP meeting that he thinks Ben is doing a good job. I would suggest this shows he has totally lost it.
D, he's hardly likely to slag off his own current senior staff at a public meeting.
Yes, but he actually went out of his way to praise him publicly. He was not invited to comment, he offered it in a change is sometimes good way, ie look what great staff we have now, like BK, compared to the old stale establishment previously.
What did RM say at VIP then? Was it about PV, RD, CP, ACV, AC or trying to sign RVP? Either way, this thread isn't as easy to follow as ABC. Can we put this topic to bed, after 1 ...2...3
Mundell, interesting comments but why necessarily liquidation? Admin not pretty but other clubs have survived it some have prospered.
There is also the matter of the friendly debt packaged with the club, could that not have put buyers off? Mainly because it was secured on the only assets valley/training ground?
Administration protects a company from its creditors and in football has enabled Clubs to write off their debts and start again. However, administration does not make an inherently unprofitable business profitable.
In our case, when Richard Murray consolidated ownership of the Club under Baton 2010 he achieved nearly all of the benefits of administration without much of the typical collateral damage. With the exception of the need to service a loan from RBS and meet the staged repayments (which Jimenez and Slater subsequently did), debt and the interest due on it wasn't Murray's problem.
His problem was that the Club was losing circa £5m p.a. He made it very clear that while he committed to fund these losses, i.e. inject £5m into the Club, to the end of season 2010/11 he was unable to do so beyond that. What would have happened had Murray not found a buyer? We can only speculate, but unless he changed his mind the odds are that costs would have been slashed very aggressively during the summer prior to season 2011/12 with relegation perhaps highly likely and then further declines in revenue and, potentially, a vicious circle following.
Unless Murray had managed to find a way for the Club to break even, which would have been very tough playing in Division 2 or in the Blue Square Premier or below while playing at the Valley, he may have simply had to walk away. No doubt this would have been impossibly difficult for him. He simply had to find a buyer willing and able to fund very significant losses. There was no alternative. Those who believe that the sale to Jimenez and Slater saved us from administration and believe this wouldn't have been "too bad" are understating the importance of their acquisition of the Club. The alternative was far worse than that.
I think Richard needs to have a think and decided if he wants to be part of this new regime and be tarnished with them spoiling the esteem he is held within by the majority of Charlton fans for his previous success.
Its sad to see that he has now become some sort of mute that is untied from the dungeon and told to smile and wave when there is a unpopular decision or testing times.
Interesting to look back on this thread that was started almost two years ago. Will Mr Murray still be on the board come January 2018? Let's hope not for all our sakes.
Comments
Not sure from the above if you are still pushing this "chairman" issue, but the point is that he is now anon-exec chairman because he no longer has equity. Therefore he is there while RD and he agree it is worthwhile.
Like I said, it is quite common in business. For example, the chairman of Chelsea is some American lawyer called Bruce Buck. Now, do you think he so much as says "howdy" to ordinary fans without the express approval of that great football fan and UK taxpayer, Roman Abramovic?
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. In my opinion I very much doubt the majority of fans or even the majority of CL readers have heard RM dig yourself, Varney or Kavanagh out through any medium. I would expect the only reason most CL readers are aware of it at all, is through your numerous references to it.
There is also the matter of the friendly debt packaged with the club, could that not have put buyers off? Mainly because it was secured on the only assets valley/training ground?
"That said, overall KM came over better than I anticipated and Powell did what he does best to his legion of fans. Murray came across as very sanctimonious. Mocking the VIP who felt they had lost out financially under the terms of the VIP scheme, blaming Varney for overseeing the previous takeover and then stating that when Varney fell out with Jimenez and departed, a lot of his supporters had subsequently left the club as well (including those who are very vocal ie AB), which he felt was not such a bad thing. All very unnecessary and so wrong in my eyes."
I'm not suggesting that RM is innocent or guilty of anything. We will have to agree to disagree as to the result of his 'attacks'. I'm not convinced, personally if it damages his own credibility - especially as he would, naturally, present it in such a way as he would look like he was the 'good guy' and others less so, which is what happened.
As for the pertinent questions that he wouldn't answer, that would require someone to ask them. I do remember you floating a question on a previous thread before he came to Bromley last year - needless to say the question was too offensive (in my view) for anyone to ask it - however he did read it on here and he did, in fact, answer most of it. Clearly I will never know if he answers all questions 'truthfully' as you suggested he might not but the whole point of these type of meetings has been that he shares information with 'friends'. There is little point in putting these events on if they are going to be so aggressive that RM wouldn't come again. Equally he is unlikely to refuse to answer any questions or the fans would stop coming along.
I don't suppose I'm unique, but I am significantly more interested in the subjects we are talking about being aired at these sort of meetings. In truth (rightly or wrongly) there is little benefit in turning up at these events and reading what might well have been on the web site. Thus I have no problem with RM discussing these subjects. I can understand how those involved would not feel the same - and this applies to players who might have had things revealed about them, as much as it applies to previous board members and non-footballing employees.
Whether it is professional/respectful/morally acceptable enough is not my concern, to be truthful with you. I like a bit of gossip, and even though I might not, personally, make such revealing statements about my colleagues and employees it doesn't prevent me from turning up to hear others do it.
I'm not going to discuss what was shared but I will say that my view of certain people was changed in light of some of the revelations. I can understand how those involved would want to rebut some of the 'allegations' but as I say they are well within their rights to do so - assuming it doesn't affect a confidential agreement that they signed.
Murray has been offered the opportunity to debate his comments about third parties in public where they can have a right of reply. Unsurprisingly, he hasn't taken up the offer.
Let me put something else to you. Supposing for example that no confidentiality agreement exists in relation to the relevant period and you are a very senior and long-serving former employee who is the constant target of personal attacks from your former boss, questioning your integrity and motivation, but mostly made in private or off the record and reported back to you through multiple trusted third parties. You become aware that it is starting colour people's judgement of you, personal and professional.
You know what is being said is at best seriously misleading and missing salient facts, so you offer to put all the issues in the public domain so they can be judged objectively, but to no avail. You bite your tongue for a long while because you don't want to damage the club or your former boss. Ultimately, would you be able to keep quiet if the attacks continued? And if not would the subsequent explosion be of benefit to anyone?
At some stage all injured parties are just going to have to accept that their time is up and very few people care. ( Remember Heath?) it's the law of diminishing returns. I only know that there are honourable people I value who have been badly wounded and there is nothing I can do about it.
I don't want to hear the rights and wrongs of what has gone on when all it can do is damage the Club. What's it going to achieve? Absolutely feck all, except someone feels better that 500 people on a forum have heard 'their side of the arguement'.
We should be looking forward and trying to develop relationships with the current owner, not navel gazing about who said what to whom. I'm worried that there are plenty of skeletons in the closet during the previous tenure that can do us no good. Yet time and time again, subtle hints and innuendos are being posted on here and in VOTV.
We get it, RM isn't the kind friendly benefactor he once was. We don't like it, but it's a fact of life. At the moment he's our primary link with RD and KM and we need to develop that, not knock him at every opportunity because he didn't fight your corner.
I'm sure your next article about BK isn't going to hold back any punches - but will you ask him to comment before publication? What you're accusing RM of now is no different from the previous printed articles of accusations, mocking and humiliation you've piled on BK in your periodical.
Yet again AB, you want to have it both ways. This is the third occasion this year. Please mate, for your own sanity STOP IT. Move on.
I'm sure events / incidents will occur in future that will warrent re-visiting questions like this. But for now i agree this is probably in the wider best interests being put to bed eh?
Get the dressings off the wounds, see how deep they are, get them clean, and some antiseptic, clean bandages, and hope they heal.
The tragedy is that if a loyal Charlton person is being slagged off without a right of reply then we all suffer, especially if expertise is ignored because of it. Richard Murray is roundly recognised as being in credit overall (despite Dowie!), and there ought to be a way of marshalling positive forces interested in the good of Charlton from a clean slate.
There is a fundamental difference in the two situations though.
I suggest that if BK expressed a right of reply then it is as dead a cert as a Peanuts Grand National tip that space would be available in Voice of the Valley.
Where is Airman's formal right of reply?
In our case, when Richard Murray consolidated ownership of the Club under Baton 2010 he achieved nearly all of the benefits of administration without much of the typical collateral damage. With the exception of the need to service a loan from RBS and meet the staged repayments (which Jimenez and Slater subsequently did), debt and the interest due on it wasn't Murray's problem.
His problem was that the Club was losing circa £5m p.a. He made it very clear that while he committed to fund these losses, i.e. inject £5m into the Club, to the end of season 2010/11 he was unable to do so beyond that. What would have happened had Murray not found a buyer? We can only speculate, but unless he changed his mind the odds are that costs would have been slashed very aggressively during the summer prior to season 2011/12 with relegation perhaps highly likely and then further declines in revenue and, potentially, a vicious circle following.
Unless Murray had managed to find a way for the Club to break even, which would have been very tough playing in Division 2 or in the Blue Square Premier or below while playing at the Valley, he may have simply had to walk away. No doubt this would have been impossibly difficult for him. He simply had to find a buyer willing and able to fund very significant losses. There was no alternative. Those who believe that the sale to Jimenez and Slater saved us from administration and believe this wouldn't have been "too bad" are understating the importance of their acquisition of the Club. The alternative was far worse than that.
Its sad to see that he has now become some sort of mute that is untied from the dungeon and told to smile and wave when there is a unpopular decision or testing times.