all qs to the board should go through the trust at this stage no reason for this not to be the case at all
Imagine if someone set up a trade union with, say, ten percent of the workers in an industry and then announced that anyone else expressing a collective view should subordinate it to the views of the union executive or keep quiet.
Much as I support the trust, it doesn't speak for all fans and it never will. Neither does any other group, magazine, supporters' club or individual. They are all just individual entities that are more or less credible based on their history, their size and their motives. And the club is free to ignore any or all of them on their own merits.
RD's words in first message to Alcoron. I think it is important as it echoes what he has said to us. There is a huge social experiment underway and CAFC supporters, for better or worse, are part of the experiment. So IMO, it is important to understand RD's 'vision' and pseudo liberal political outlook. He is viewing this differently to all of us, he is not a football 'supporter' but he may regard himself as a social 'visionary'.
................After his speech, Perez ushered Duchatelet Roland, who already in his first words, reaffirmed its idea of the AD Alcorcón a club that is "the center of the town meeting." So he said that "football is very important to our society as a center of union and meeting people from all walks of age, culture, social, political, religious ... ie different people but it is united by an interest Common, in this case the game. In addition, this sport contributes to social development, allowing more women enter and practice it, something that still needs to be developed more in Spain. Also, football allows people with various social problems can be identified with football and can help them in their life, hence its social importance, "he said.
Just catching up with all this. The reason I've not been on here much in recent days is indeed that I have been working on the Voice, however it's not because I want to hold anything back. I just can't afford the time to engage on here when I'm doing it or it would never get done.
A few factual points: I believe it was Derek Chappell, not Richard Murray, who said that Parkinson would be judged on results. I may be wrong, but that's my recollection.
Secondly, it says in the third paragraph of my article about Yann in the last Voice: "His expiring deal was widely believed to contain a clause triggering an extension if he played a certain number of games." So it's a bit rich to read claims I never mentioned it, blah, blah, blah.
The truth is I could not get to the bottom of this at the time, despite speaking to people involved in the deal and our source for YK's side of the story. But I put it in and also referred to NLA's story about him not wanting to travel to Huddersfield. Subsequently, Seriously Red reminded us on here that it came originally from Yann himself at a meeting.
You can be absolutely confident that the source of the stories about team selection is Chris Powell. At the same time, he isn't going to say anything publicly, any more than he did about Slater and Jimenez because he knows in the future it will count against him elsewhere if he does. So you'll never get the conclusive proof you want and people on each side of this argument will continue to believe what they prefer to believe.
A lot of people, however, seem to want to confuse the respect and affection for Chris with the view that he was infallible. That is not my view, but I do believe he has been badly treated. Nevertheless, we move on because there is no alternative unless we are going to give up supporting the club.
There is no conspiracy or agenda from former employees, directors, Valley Party candidates, journalists or anyone else against RD. Why would there be? However there is concern - at different levels of intensity - about the future based on what has happened so far, including attempts to interfere in team selection. But why that happened - and it did - nobody really understands.
Airman Brown The only reason I recalled the Eltham Addicks announcement was because at the time there were a number of fans going over the top about the majority of players going out of contract. I actually saw this as a strong aspect in the sale of the club for it allowed a new owner the luxury of cherry picking who to keep and then topping up the squad in the summer. Most fans would have kept him but it appears he wanted more money and a longer deal - more than the new owner was prepared to offer perhaps. The thing is now that we arrive at the business end of the season more players have been awarded contracts and it is becoming clearer as to who might leave. The wish list for many fans of who to retain is down to four or five which is a long way from only having 7 players contracted beyond June 2014. My references were to the article written by one of your contributors. And if I missed something written by yourself in the same edition then I will take a look. My real point is what are the main questions the fans should ask the club, when and who should ask them. I have publicised my view that it should be the Trust as a new broad church but that is for others to resolve as I am taking a back.seat. Ironically it is in the club's interests to clarify the scope of fan engagement as this can differentiate them from the last lot and assist in promoting positive messages. Duchatelet is more than half way through his first 100 days which may well set the tone for the next 3-5 years. There needs to be more meat on the bones if he wants to sell more seats and leave less room for speculation.
so who are the splitters? g21 or the trust? i think all "pressure groups" should talk before appointing themselves as the conduit to KM/RD and then decide the best course of action ..you might even end up with a fans representative on the board/?(sound familiar?)
Just catching up with all this. The reason I've not been on here much in recent days is indeed that I have been working on the Voice, however it's not because I want to hold anything back. I just can't afford the time to engage on here when I'm doing it or it would never get done.
A few factual points: I believe it was Derek Chappell, not Richard Murray, who said that Parkinson would be judged on results. I may be wrong, but that's my recollection.
Secondly, it says in the third paragraph of my article about Yann in the last Voice: "His expiring deal was widely believed to contain a clause triggering an extension if he played a certain number of games." So it's a bit rich to read claims I never mentioned it, blah, blah, blah.
The truth is I could not get to the bottom of this at the time, despite speaking to people involved in the deal and our source for YK's side of the story. But I put it in and also referred to NLA's story about him not wanting to travel to Huddersfield. Subsequently, Seriously Red reminded us on here that it came originally from Yann himself at a meeting.
You can be absolutely confident that the source of the stories about team selection is Chris Powell. At the same time, he isn't going to say anything publicly, any more than he did about Slater and Jimenez because he knows in the future it will count against him elsewhere if he does. So you'll never get the conclusive proof you want and people on each side of this argument will continue to believe what they prefer to believe.
A lot of people, however, seem to want to confuse the respect and affection for Chris with the view that he was infallible. That is not my view, but I do believe he has been badly treated. Nevertheless, we move on because there is no alternative unless we are going to give up supporting the club.
There is no conspiracy or agenda from former employees, directors, Valley Party candidates, journalists or anyone else against RD. Why would there be? However there is concern - at different levels of intensity - about the future based on what has happened so far, including attempts to interfere in team selection. But why that happened - and it did - nobody really understands.
Airman Brown The only reason I recalled the Eltham Addicks announcement was because at the time there were a number of fans going over the top about the majority of players going out of contract. I actually saw this as a strong aspect in the sale of the club for it allowed a new owner the luxury of cherry picking who to keep and then topping up the squad in the summer. Most fans would have kept him but it appears he wanted more money and a longer deal - more than the new owner was prepared to offer perhaps. The thing is now that we arrive at the business end of the season more players have been awarded contracts and it is becoming clearer as to who might leave. The wish list for many fans of who to retain is down to four or five which is a long way from only having 7 players contracted beyond June 2014. My references were to the article written by one of your contributors. And if I missed something written by yourself in the same edition then I will take a look. My real point is what are the main questions the fans should ask the club, when and who should ask them. I have publicised my view that it should be the Trust as a new broad church but that is for others to resolve as I am taking a back.seat. Ironically it is in the club's interests to clarify the scope of fan engagement as this can differentiate them from the last lot and assist in promoting positive messages. Duchatelet is more than half way through his first 100 days which may well set the tone for the next 3-5 years. There needs to be more meat on the bones if he wants to sell more seats and leave less room for speculation.
You said: "The last edition of VOTV had an article on Kermorgant which failed to mention anywhere that if he played a set number of games it would trigger a contract extension - the source? YK himself at Eltham Addicks! NLA adds a little more about a rumour circulating...So why didn't Rick report any of this? The answer posted on this site was that there was no evidence of this clause! So when you state "Airman Brown" takes a challenge head on do you mean he can he spin something to create bad news about the club whoever the owner and whatever the season? Which to bring the thread back on topic is then repeated by Varney when the club is vulnerable?"
Clearly it's not necessary or even sensible for one article to repeat what's in another, which actually is more prominent in the same issue of the magazine.
You specifically say "why didn't Rick report any of this". But I did, as I've shown. A better question might be, why is Kevin posting misleading claims about Rick, because what you have said is not true, is it?
I didn't remember at the time where it had come from originally, which you clarified on here and that's fair enough. I went out of my way to try to establish if it was true because I am obviously aware that we were being given information from a particular perspective. But don't accuse me of "spin" when I actually made sure the balancing claims to someone else's article were put - and more than that added NLA's claim about Huddersfield, which I've never heard from anyone but him, but I felt was needed for balance.
I don't believe there are any intentional; 'splitters' as such. There are a great many people who are concerned about what is happening. It may make for good tabloid style sensationalism to stoke up arguments or differences of opinion, but it makes little sense for CAFC supporters to encourage that. There are widely differing viewpoints, different approaches and there are people, who for professional reasons maybe, are not able to align themselves to a supporters group per se. I fully agree with AFKA that there is a real debate brewing here. Passions understandably run high, especially when there is a real lack of factual evidence. But it is very encouraging to see that people are moving toward each other as understanding between us grows. Long may it continue. COYR.
all qs to the board should go through the trust at this stage no reason for this not to be the case at all
Imagine if someone set up a trade union with, say, ten percent of the workers in an industry and then announced that anyone else expressing a collective view should subordinate it to the views of the union executive or keep quiet.
Much as I support the trust, it doesn't speak for all fans and it never will. Neither does any other group, magazine, supporters' club or individual. They are all just individual entities that are more or less credible based on their history, their size and their motives. And the club is free to ignore any or all of them on their own merits.
But your announcement states you are setting up a collective and you invited the Trust to subsume it's roles and goals into this umbrella group. Are you setting up another union? Is voice of the Valley going to become a membership based organisation with an elected committee? How are the negotiations going with into the Valley because the natural progression of your vision is that you cannot progress without their explicit consent! 40% of the fanbase have no interest in Trust, supporter branches, Valley Gold or anything else except the football and that fair enough. What you are suggesting is simply a variation of the fans forum and what you fail to recognise is that the Trust was set up for the purposes you aspire to cover. And will the club deal with an umbrella group which by definition will have no power to enforce execution? In terms of scale a group of unions are there over hundreds of years covering hundreds of locations and many thousands of jobs. The comparison simply does not hold. It is up to fans to state whether they support the Trust, want it to shift direction or simply say it is not fit for purpose and needs replacing. My preference is that people with energy and vision help the Trust attain it's potential... what's yours? Not saying anyone was wrong to meet in the wake of Powell's departure but I Trust people can find a way to unify under the banner of an organisation which was set up for this change of owner, and the next and the next...
Seriously red, you are conveniently ignoring the point that not everyone in the G21 wanted to be part of the Trust. As you have now resigned from the Trust ( for uinstated reasons) , why don't you allow the Trust and the G21 to sort it between themselves. You seem to be pursuing some kind of rather personal agenda which I personally find unseemly and less than helpful.
all qs to the board should go through the trust at this stage no reason for this not to be the case at all
Imagine if someone set up a trade union with, say, ten percent of the workers in an industry and then announced that anyone else expressing a collective view should subordinate it to the views of the union executive or keep quiet.
Much as I support the trust, it doesn't speak for all fans and it never will. Neither does any other group, magazine, supporters' club or individual. They are all just individual entities that are more or less credible based on their history, their size and their motives. And the club is free to ignore any or all of them on their own merits.
But your announcement states you are setting up a collective and you invited the Trust to subsume it's roles and goals into this umbrella group. Are you setting up another union? Is voice of the Valley going to become a membership based organisation with an elected committee? How are the negotiations going with into the Valley because the natural progression of your vision is that you cannot progress without their explicit consent! 40% of the fanbase have no interest in Trust, supporter branches, Valley Gold or anything else except the football and that fair enough. What you are suggesting is simply a variation of the fans forum and what you fail to recognise is that the Trust was set up for the purposes you aspire to cover. And will the club deal with an umbrella group which by definition will have no power to enforce execution? In terms of scale a group of unions are there over hundreds of years covering hundreds of locations and many thousands of jobs. The comparison simply does not hold. It is up to fans to state whether they support the Trust, want it to shift direction or simply say it is not fit for purpose and needs replacing. My preference is that people with energy and vision help the Trust attain it's potential... what's yours? Not saying anyone was wrong to meet in the wake of Powell's departure but I Trust people can find a way to unify under the banner of an organisation which was set up for this change of owner, and the next and the next...
I attended the first, and many regular meetings when the trust was initially formed. Barnie Razzel deserves huge praise for getting things going and (keeping things going too), we had the support from Ben Shave (a Watford fan) from the wider football trust network to show us how to operate the formalities in order to get established.
I am pretty sure that at the time the trust was being established Airman was still employed at Charlton.
So why did the trust happen?
At the time there were concerns about the financial strength of Charlton, and whether we were heading for administration. The example of Portsmouth was right in front of us, and at the time there was the brewing shenanigans at Coventry, there was also the perceived success at Swansea. The financial concerns also linked at the time (very heavily) as to whether we would be having a future at the Valley itself, not least because the Valley was one of the few assets the then owners seemed to have. The financial concerns were also about investment in the team. It was felt strongly at the time that if things went belly up the Trust would be the only game in town, like at Portsmouth. A lot of the early days of the trust were played out during the 2012 Olympics Another huge reason the trust happened was because of the wider Trust movement within football, it was felt to be (and is) a credible way of fans acting together for the club(s) they love, a co-operative network was out there, and mutual support for the venture was available. I know, because I was there, that great pains were taken during those early times of our Trust to not be formed to be overtly confrontational with the parent club, whilst also being prepared to argue and fight for positive reasons where possible. If the Trust had started as an opposition body to the club it would have alienated fans, and if the Trust had had a softer approach then it would be accused of being too weak, toothless, and in bed with the directors. It is to the huge credit to those who have established databases, controlled money, created publications, run surveys, established websites, grown the membership and created the credibility it has. The trust is easy to snipe at from the sidelines than to do the work, and indeed in the supporters statement thread there are plenty of snipers firing off in all directions.
Airman says above that no group can purport to represent all the fans and he is right of course. The trust membership is only a relatively small proportion of Charlton fans, but it is the biggest of any organised body of Charlton fans, and as such it is the closest thing we have to a representative fans body in this new football landscape.
The Oak group are totally different. created as a reaction to events, created by fans who care about the club, however clumsily it was created, many people were beginning to feel disassociated from their club for loads of reasons (extensively detailed elsewhere).
I think it is wrong to assume the Oak group came about because people were annoyed that their power and influence was slipping away, or to sell magazines, or to lord it over other supporters, or to undermine the Trust, or to air personal grievances, or to bring down Charlton Athletic. The trust was formed by a collection of concerned fans, the Oak group was formed by a collection of concerned fans. The trust has gone on to grow very impressively, the Oak group is very unlikely to follow anything like the same trajectory.
However it is possible, without employing Orwellian doublethink, to believe that all pro-active efforts by fans, be they individuals or groups, are a good thing. If the new owners know how much we want to be engaged as a fan base, how much nous and expertise the fan base have, how articulate the fan base can be, and how passionately they care...from whatever source be it VIP's or individuals writing in, then it surely can't be a bad thing can it?
Perhaps the biggest indicator of satisfaction/dissatisfaction is not what any individual or group says, but bums on seats at the Valley.
Seriously red, you are conveniently ignoring the point that not everyone in the G21 wanted to be part of the Trust. As you have now resigned from the Trust ( for uinstated reasons) , why don't you allow the Trust and the G21 to sort it between themselves. You seem to be pursuing some kind of rather personal agenda which I personally find unseemly and less than helpful.
Resigned from the Trust board, not the Trust itself I believe.
all qs to the board should go through the trust at this stage no reason for this not to be the case at all
Imagine if someone set up a trade union with, say, ten percent of the workers in an industry and then announced that anyone else expressing a collective view should subordinate it to the views of the union executive or keep quiet.
Much as I support the trust, it doesn't speak for all fans and it never will. Neither does any other group, magazine, supporters' club or individual. They are all just individual entities that are more or less credible based on their history, their size and their motives. And the club is free to ignore any or all of them on their own merits.
But your announcement states you are setting up a collective and you invited the Trust to subsume it's roles and goals into this umbrella group. Are you setting up another union? Is voice of the Valley going to become a membership based organisation with an elected committee? How are the negotiations going with into the Valley because the natural progression of your vision is that you cannot progress without their explicit consent! 40% of the fanbase have no interest in Trust, supporter branches, Valley Gold or anything else except the football and that fair enough. What you are suggesting is simply a variation of the fans forum and what you fail to recognise is that the Trust was set up for the purposes you aspire to cover. And will the club deal with an umbrella group which by definition will have no power to enforce execution? In terms of scale a group of unions are there over hundreds of years covering hundreds of locations and many thousands of jobs. The comparison simply does not hold. It is up to fans to state whether they support the Trust, want it to shift direction or simply say it is not fit for purpose and needs replacing. My preference is that people with energy and vision help the Trust attain it's potential... what's yours? Not saying anyone was wrong to meet in the wake of Powell's departure but I Trust people can find a way to unify under the banner of an organisation which was set up for this change of owner, and the next and the next...
Total nonsense.
Yeah I know - that bit about Into the Valley was over the top! Have you been on there lately?
I don't believe there are any intentional; 'splitters' as such. There are a great many people who are concerned about what is happening. It may make for good tabloid style sensationalism to stoke up arguments or differences of opinion, but it makes little sense for CAFC supporters to encourage that. There are widely differing viewpoints, different approaches and there are people, who for professional reasons maybe, are not able to align themselves to a supporters group per se. I fully agree with AFKA that there is a real debate brewing here. Passions understandably run high, especially when there is a real lack of factual evidence. But it is very encouraging to see that people are moving toward each other as understanding between us grows. Long may it continue. COYR.
100% agree ~ I have a view on what I see happening at the club and I respect that others may differ. I believe there should be one fans group representing fans and not a rainbow coalition and I have stated reasons elsewhere. But it is not for me to influence that outcome nor the timing and I respect those who choose to keep separate organisations or even create new ones. Let's see where we are on and off the pitch in 12 months time for the landscape has certainly changed in the last 12 months.
I have to say, I'm not sure what questions, we would like to be asked, that would get a straight answer.
Meire/Powell/Murray were asked in public at the VIP meeting, whether Powell picked the team, without interference and all 3 confirmed he did.
If Powell isn't going to say otherwise publically (and he'd be shooting himself in the foot if he did) and RD is extremely unlikely to admit this in public, then what's the point ?
We all know he oversees transfers and why wouldn't he ?
We all know he wants to use the network of players, that's the whole basis of his plan.
until the trust had got to the table with RD and KM and the initial relationship was formed , and they had their chance to approach the questions that most want answering, The relationship between RD and CAFC his feelings on where we sit in his network, the financing and the whole other questions henry has put across ( I agree with all his should the trust want to nick them) etc, there was no need for a 2nd group to establish and request meetings, there was definitely no need for you to suggest an ST boycott, you of all people understand the need for that money to come in during the time period it does, that was a real bad thing you were championing, without telling all of us why you felt that this was needed
infact it was a bit treacherous considering your old position and knowledge of how that money helps keep things ticking over
the most important thing for CAFC fans imo is that the trust exists , and that it is well supported 1000 is nothing we should be at 4 or 5k but the apathy of cafc fans to accept shit since the days of the VP and the days before it have always astounded me ,
when pardew and Parkinson were so woefully inept when Murray was making mistake after mistake even when he was way out of line over wendy , no one really reacted
when the trust was formed I was nervy I believed it would be about individuals and they would get far too close to Murray ( I still think this is a problem that may happen, Muzza courts his audience well and is good at it, so those there be wary )
But the individuals in the trust running it , are working tirelessly for what they believe in and they are disagreeing and arguing which imo is brilliant, no organisation should run without fallout and objection
I do object to Kevin resigning , I object to those on the board having their name on the G21 list as I want RD and KM to meet the trust first as a controlled and managed body of people bound by rules and a need to be professional
Football club trusts are all over the country and the name Trust is widely associated with many clubs and I want RD to realise that the Trust is a part of many across the uk's 92 league clubs and if treated in the right way is a hugely beneficial body for both club and fans
the creation of G21 and to publicize it in the way you did and to run it along side an attack on cafc and RD by yourself created a very uneasy feel amongst its support base at a time when the majority of us don't see the need and are waiting with anticipation to surviving in this league and watching RD and his vision, just because its different doesn't make it wrong in the same way it doesn't make it right
until the trust had got to the table with RD and KM and the initial relationship was formed , and they had their chance to approach the questions that most want answering, The relationship between RD and CAFC his feelings on where we sit in his network, the financing and the whole other questions henry has put across ( I agree with all his should the trust want to nick them) etc, there was no need for a 2nd group to establish and request meetings, there was definitely no need for you to suggest an ST boycott, you of all people understand the need for that money to come in during the time period it does, that was a real bad thing you were championing, without telling all of us why you felt that this was needed
infact it was a bit treacherous considering your old position and knowledge of how that money helps keep things ticking over
Exactly how I felt to be honest.
It just seemed that the G21 were jumping the gun. The opening post was completely negative, ignoring some of the work the Trust were already doing in building up relationships (yet somehow getting tacit approval of the statement) and to a certain extent making them sound irrelevant to what the G21 wanted to achieve - and we still don't really know what that is.
Then came the "if they don't play ball" threat, which along with the championing of a ST boycott, before contact had even been made, just seemed completely out of proportion just two days after CP had been sacked - which was purported to be the catalyst for the meeting.
On top of that with statements like 'across the generations' and the fact it was by invitation only it seemed to me more like a januis clausis meeting than an open discussion - with other Charlton fans being excluded.
Bottom line is no one can argue like a family, but they're still family.
I find it very hard to believe that Duchatelet was telling Chris Powell who to play. He appears to be far too intelligent, thoughtful and experienced to make such a basic management error. Moreover, what was the objective? I can very readily believe, however, that Duchatelet was giving Chris Powell a hard time, pressing him to explain why he wasn't playing Thuram and others, but that's a subtly and significantly different situation. It would, nevertheless, be entirely consistent with Powell telling people that Duchatelet wanted him to play Thuram. He may even have felt he was being pressurised.
It's important to bear in mind that this discussion about team selection may well have been taking place against the background of two important factors.
First, I suspect that Duchatelet, or more accurately his advisors, seriously underestimated the standard of play in the Championship and assumed that the players "sent" to Charlton would make a difference. Perhaps they just screwed up, but its understandable that when these players weren't being selected Duchatelet wanted to know why not.
Second, it's entirely plausible that Duchatelet wasn't sure he could trust Powell. "Is it true that these players don't warrant a place in the side or is Powell just making a point?", is a question Duchatelet may have been asking. This uncertainty, perhaps even a suspicion, would have increased the tension at a time when there were probably difficult conversations about transfer policy and the independent reports Duchatelet was receiving about the team's performances, for example.
I'm not at all surprised that Jose Riga has picked Ben Hamer ahead of Thuram as did Powell. Both men have made decisions they thought were right and not unexpectedly they've agreed on this one. There's no pressure on Riga though. Duchatelet has no reason to doubt him.
This interpretation would suggest that the tension around player selection was unnecessary and unfortunate, but perhaps nobody's fault. I doubt very much that it's why Powell was sacked though.
If we simply take Duchatelet's statement about Powell at face value then the explanation is a very simple one. Powell wanted more control over footballing matters than Duchatelet was prepared to give him. Credit to Powell for not accepting a job he wasn't really comfortable with and credit to Duchatelet for making the right decision for the Club, despite it's obvious unpopularity. It was the right decision because ongoing disagreement and tension, potentially preventing either Powell or Duchatelet running the Club in the way they wanted, was not in the interests of the Club in the medium term. Camels, horses and committees spring to mind. Again, this interpretation is consistent with Duchatelet respecting Powell as a coach and wanting him to stay on, but only on his terms, of course.
We don't know what's really going on - or at least I don't - but based on the information in the public domain it does seem to me that everything we've seen so far, the arrival of players from Standard Liege, albeit perhaps ill-judged, the sales of Kermorgant and Stephens and the sacking of Chris Powell were logical and rational decisions all made, in Duchatelet's view, in the best interests of Charlton Athletic. And only Charlton Athletic. There is no real evidence of any other agenda, let alone anything sinister.
I'm not suggesting that there is no reason for concern. It's far from clear how the network will add value, for example, and there has to be a risk that the philosophical belief that it is possible to succeed without losing significant sums of money, at least initially, will lead to failure. However, as I have posted elsewhere, if that happens it seems to me that it will be more a case of the mad professor who blows up his own laboratory than Dr Evil.
To those who hold a different view or, alternatively, are much more suspicious I'd ask two questions. Genuine questions. First, what is the economic logic of buying Charlton as a feeder Club for Standard Liege? How would such a plan actually work? Second, what is the logic of buying Charlton and then forcing the Club to play loanees from Standard Liege who aren't good enough to play on merit. How does that help anybody? Chelsea currently have around 25 players out on loan, all across Europe, at Clubs selected for each player. Why can't Standard use the loan market if they want surplus players to play?
PS I'd expect that Chris Powell has been paid off and signed some kind of compromise agreement. Or that this is being organised. Doubt he'll say anything in public that isn't agreed with the Club.
I find it very hard to believe that Duchatelet was telling Chris Powell who to play. He appears to be far too intelligent, thoughtful and experienced to make such a basic management error. Moreover, what was the objective? I can very readily believe, however, that Duchatelet was giving Chris Powell a hard time, pressing him to explain why he wasn't playing Thuram and others, but that's a subtly and significantly different situation. It would, nevertheless, be entirely consistent with Powell telling people that Duchatelet wanted him to play Thuram. He may even have felt he was being pressurised.
It's important to bear in mind that this discussion about team selection may well have been taking place against the background of two important factors.
First, I suspect that Duchatelet, or more accurately his advisors, seriously underestimated the standard of play in the Championship and assumed that the players "sent" to Charlton would make a difference. Perhaps they just screwed up, but its understandable that when these players weren't being selected Duchatelet wanted to know why not.
Second, it's entirely plausible that Duchatelet wasn't sure he could trust Powell. "Is it true that these players don't warrant a place in the side or is Powell just making a point?", is a question Duchatelet may have been asking. This uncertainty, perhaps even a suspicion, would have increased the tension at a time when there were probably difficult conversations about transfer policy and the independent reports Duchatelet was receiving about the team's performances, for example.
I'm not at all surprised that Jose Riga has picked Ben Hamer ahead of Thuram as did Powell. Both men have made decisions they thought were right and not unexpectedly they've agreed on this one. There's no pressure on Riga though. Duchatelet has no reason to doubt him.
This interpretation would suggest that the tension around player selection was unnecessary and unfortunate, but perhaps nobody's fault. I doubt very much that it's why Powell was sacked though.
If we simply take Duchatelet's statement about Powell at face value then the explanation is a very simple one. Powell wanted more control over footballing matters than Duchatelet was prepared to give him. Credit to Powell for not accepting a job he wasn't really comfortable with and credit to Duchatelet for making the right decision for the Club, despite it's obvious unpopularity. It was the right decision because ongoing disagreement and tension, potentially preventing either Powell or Duchatelet running the Club in the way they wanted, was not in the interests of the Club in the medium term. Camels, horses and committees spring to mind. Again, this interpretation is consistent with Duchatelet respecting Powell as a coach and wanting him to stay on, but only on his terms, of course.
We don't know what's really going on - or at least I don't - but based on the information in the public domain it does seem to me that everything we've seen so far, the arrival of players from Standard Liege, albeit perhaps ill-judged, the sales of Kermorgant and Stephens and the sacking of Chris Powell were logical and rational decisions all made, in Duchatelet's view, in the best interests of Charlton Athletic. And only Charlton Athletic. There is no real evidence of any other agenda, let alone anything sinister.
I'm not suggesting that there is no reason for concern. It's far from clear how the network will add value, for example, and there has to be a risk that the philosophical belief that it is possible to succeed without losing significant sums of money, at least initially, will lead to failure. However, as I have posted elsewhere, if that happens it seems to me that it will be more a case of the mad professor who blows up his own laboratory than Dr Evil.
To those who hold a different view or, alternatively, are much more suspicious I'd ask two questions. Genuine questions. First, what is the economic logic of buying Charlton as a feeder Club for Standard Liege? How would such a plan actually work? Second, what is the logic of buying Charlton and then forcing the Club to play loanees from Standard Liege who aren't good enough to play on merit. How does that help anybody? Chelsea currently have around 25 players out on loan, all across Europe, at Clubs selected for each player. Why can't Standard use the loan market if they want surplus players to play?
PS I'd expect that Chris Powell has been paid off and signed some kind of compromise agreement. Or that this is being organised. Doubt he'll say anything in public that isn't agreed with the Club.
Well said, this is pretty much where I stand right now. Duchatelet may have made mistakes, he may go on to make more, but he has not intentionally made any decision that he did not genuinely (if perhaps mistakenly) believe would benefit the club he spent 14million pounds to buy. I will say that even with the decisions I have disagreed with, I have been able to see the logic, though not necessarily agreed with it. Riga has come in and done a good job thus far, the new pitch and the plans for the academy and the training ground are very positive signs to me.
I find it very hard to believe that Duchatelet was telling Chris Powell who to play. He appears to be far too intelligent, thoughtful and experienced to make such a basic management error. Moreover, what was the objective? I can very readily believe, however, that Duchatelet was giving Chris Powell a hard time, pressing him to explain why he wasn't playing Thuram and others, but that's a subtly and significantly different situation. It would, nevertheless, be entirely consistent with Powell telling people that Duchatelet wanted him to play Thuram. He may even have felt he was being pressurised.
It's important to bear in mind that this discussion about team selection may well have been taking place against the background of two important factors.
First, I suspect that Duchatelet, or more accurately his advisors, seriously underestimated the standard of play in the Championship and assumed that the players "sent" to Charlton would make a difference. Perhaps they just screwed up, but its understandable that when these players weren't being selected Duchatelet wanted to know why not.
Second, it's entirely plausible that Duchatelet wasn't sure he could trust Powell. "Is it true that these players don't warrant a place in the side or is Powell just making a point?", is a question Duchatelet may have been asking. This uncertainty, perhaps even a suspicion, would have increased the tension at a time when there were probably difficult conversations about transfer policy and the independent reports Duchatelet was receiving about the team's performances, for example.
I'm not at all surprised that Jose Riga has picked Ben Hamer ahead of Thuram as did Powell. Both men have made decisions they thought were right and not unexpectedly they've agreed on this one. There's no pressure on Riga though. Duchatelet has no reason to doubt him.
This interpretation would suggest that the tension around player selection was unnecessary and unfortunate, but perhaps nobody's fault. I doubt very much that it's why Powell was sacked though.
If we simply take Duchatelet's statement about Powell at face value then the explanation is a very simple one. Powell wanted more control over footballing matters than Duchatelet was prepared to give him. Credit to Powell for not accepting a job he wasn't really comfortable with and credit to Duchatelet for making the right decision for the Club, despite it's obvious unpopularity. It was the right decision because ongoing disagreement and tension, potentially preventing either Powell or Duchatelet running the Club in the way they wanted, was not in the interests of the Club in the medium term. Camels, horses and committees spring to mind. Again, this interpretation is consistent with Duchatelet respecting Powell as a coach and wanting him to stay on, but only on his terms, of course.
We don't know what's really going on - or at least I don't - but based on the information in the public domain it does seem to me that everything we've seen so far, the arrival of players from Standard Liege, albeit perhaps ill-judged, the sales of Kermorgant and Stephens and the sacking of Chris Powell were logical and rational decisions all made, in Duchatelet's view, in the best interests of Charlton Athletic. And only Charlton Athletic. There is no real evidence of any other agenda, let alone anything sinister.
I'm not suggesting that there is no reason for concern. It's far from clear how the network will add value, for example, and there has to be a risk that the philosophical belief that it is possible to succeed without losing significant sums of money, at least initially, will lead to failure. However, as I have posted elsewhere, if that happens it seems to me that it will be more a case of the mad professor who blows up his own laboratory than Dr Evil.
To those who hold a different view or, alternatively, are much more suspicious I'd ask two questions. Genuine questions. First, what is the economic logic of buying Charlton as a feeder Club for Standard Liege? How would such a plan actually work? Second, what is the logic of buying Charlton and then forcing the Club to play loanees from Standard Liege who aren't good enough to play on merit. How does that help anybody? Chelsea currently have around 25 players out on loan, all across Europe, at Clubs selected for each player. Why can't Standard use the loan market if they want surplus players to play?
PS I'd expect that Chris Powell has been paid off and signed some kind of compromise agreement. Or that this is being organised. Doubt he'll say anything in public that isn't agreed with the Club.
Very good post.
I am still concerned by the Liege guy who said that if there are players not good enough to play in the Liege team, they go to Charlton to get experience. Now I know that is what clubs do, what we have done with Pope at York for example. It suggests to me, not so much the feeder club idea, but more the reserve idea, to be a proving ground for players. It was always nice if you could win the Football Combination, but at the end of the day where you finished in the combination was no biggie. If we are obliged to play players from other network clubs to train them up, and maybe ship them on, where do the results matter? Yes it would be nice if this experiment got us results, even success, but maybe the thought is that if Charlton are developing the players then results are no biggie as long as those players have added value. I would love to be rid of this concern, and would love to think that success for Charlton was absolutely the overarching aim here. Events obviously will indicate the direction of the network, but activities at Charlton may be clouded by the notion I (and others?) have that decisions are not necessarily going to be geared towards success.
That is unfair. If there is one poster on here who will take on any challenge head on, and indeed do so in real life too, it is @Airman Brown.
Contrast that with the video of Roland Duchatelet. There seems to have been a bit of video lost in the editing suite. The bit where he states why he sacked CP. Careless editing...
The only part where he really refers to Powell's actual sacking is this: "He (Powell) did a really good job in getting Charlton back into the Championship, but the facts are the facts and then you do what you really have to do….OK, that’s what we did."
Not exactly detailed but that hints strongly towards a clash of thinking that could not be resolved so RD sacked his manager.
Which he is well within his rights to do as I have repeatedly stated. Powell would not bend, RD would not bend, so RD acted strongly and decisively (correctly is still up in the air.) I admire Powell but I cannot help but feeling that at least a portion of this falling out lies on his shoulders - RD seems a little too pragmatic to conjure some argument out of thin air.
Fine. Bend about what exactly? What is the issue? Why not just tell us?
Well we were all lead to believe that it was because he wouldn't pick the players that RD managed to bring into the Club, rather than the one's CP wanted to pick.
It was reported on here and reported in the press. If you say something enough times, then enough people will believe you.
Yesterdays line up and bench really quashes that 'fact'.
Yesterday's bench doesn't quash that fact at all, some players were injured so not available for selection and Riga will have drawn his own conclusions on players.
The bottom line is that RD has his vision for how the club should conduct transfer policy - that is his absolute right as he is the owner - and CP disagreed with him.
There were clearly issues over player selection, it may not have been as straightforward as RD demanding CP select certain players but COULD have been a case of CP requesting a new right-back or striker and RD saying, "I already brought in Reza/Lego, why not just play them?"
So, its probably not a simple case of RD telling ANY manager that "I wan't Astrid playing centre midfield" but more a case of a manager asking for certain players but RD telling them that he wants them to use the available players in "the network" rather than bring in new players.
I don't think this situation is quite as clear cut on either side of the fence as people think.
Like I said elsewhere, if I owned the club I'd have asked questions too. To counter your analogy though, RD then sanctions the signing of Obika.
Comments
Much as I support the trust, it doesn't speak for all fans and it never will. Neither does any other group, magazine, supporters' club or individual. They are all just individual entities that are more or less credible based on their history, their size and their motives. And the club is free to ignore any or all of them on their own merits.
................After his speech, Perez ushered Duchatelet Roland, who already in his first words, reaffirmed its idea of the AD Alcorcón a club that is "the center of the town meeting." So he said that "football is very important to our society as a center of union and meeting people from all walks of age, culture, social, political, religious ... ie different people but it is united by an interest Common, in this case the game. In addition, this sport contributes to social development, allowing more women enter and practice it, something that still needs to be developed more in Spain. Also, football allows people with various social problems can be identified with football and can help them in their life, hence its social importance, "he said.
This is the full link which perhaps some may care to read.
http://www.adalcorcon.com/index.php/the-news/2389-roland-duchatelet-qquiero-que-la-ad-alcorcon-sea-un-centro-de-encuentro-de-la-masa-socialq
The only reason I recalled the Eltham Addicks announcement was because at the time there were a number of fans going over the top about the majority of players going out of contract. I actually saw this as a strong aspect in the sale of the club for it allowed a new owner the luxury of cherry picking who to keep and then topping up the squad in the summer. Most fans would have kept him but it appears he wanted more money and a longer deal - more than the new owner was prepared to offer perhaps.
The thing is now that we arrive at the business end of the season more players have been awarded contracts and it is becoming clearer as to who might leave. The wish list for many fans of who to retain is down to four or five which is a long way from only having 7 players contracted beyond June 2014.
My references were to the article written by one of your contributors. And if I missed something written by yourself in the same edition then I will take a look.
My real point is what are the main questions the fans should ask the club, when and who should ask them. I have publicised my view that it should be the Trust as a new broad church but that is for others to resolve as I am taking a back.seat.
Ironically it is in the club's interests to clarify the scope of fan engagement as this can differentiate them from the last lot and assist in promoting positive messages.
Duchatelet is more than half way through his first 100 days which may well set the tone for the next 3-5 years. There needs to be more meat on the bones if he wants to sell more seats and leave less room for speculation.
i think all "pressure groups" should talk before appointing themselves as the conduit to KM/RD and then decide the best course of action ..you might even end up with a fans representative on the board/?(sound familiar?)
So when you state "Airman Brown" takes a challenge head on do you mean he can he spin something to create bad news about the club whoever the owner and whatever the season? Which to bring the thread back on topic is then repeated by Varney when the club is vulnerable?"
Clearly it's not necessary or even sensible for one article to repeat what's in another, which actually is more prominent in the same issue of the magazine.
You specifically say "why didn't Rick report any of this". But I did, as I've shown. A better question might be, why is Kevin posting misleading claims about Rick, because what you have said is not true, is it?
I didn't remember at the time where it had come from originally, which you clarified on here and that's fair enough. I went out of my way to try to establish if it was true because I am obviously aware that we were being given information from a particular perspective. But don't accuse me of "spin" when I actually made sure the balancing claims to someone else's article were put - and more than that added NLA's claim about Huddersfield, which I've never heard from anyone but him, but I felt was needed for balance.
Are you setting up another union?
Is voice of the Valley going to become a membership based organisation with an elected committee?
How are the negotiations going with into the Valley because the natural progression of your vision is that you cannot progress without their explicit consent!
40% of the fanbase have no interest in Trust, supporter branches, Valley Gold or anything else except the football and that fair enough.
What you are suggesting is simply a variation of the fans forum and what you fail to recognise is that the Trust was set up for the purposes you aspire to cover.
And will the club deal with an umbrella group which by definition will have no power to enforce execution?
In terms of scale a group of unions are there over hundreds of years covering hundreds of locations and many thousands of jobs. The comparison simply does not hold.
It is up to fans to state whether they support the Trust, want it to shift direction or simply say it is not fit for purpose and needs replacing.
My preference is that people with energy and vision help the Trust attain it's potential... what's yours?
Not saying anyone was wrong to meet in the wake of Powell's departure but I Trust people can find a way to unify under the banner of an organisation which was set up for this change of owner, and the next and the next...
I attended the first, and many regular meetings when the trust was initially formed.
Barnie Razzel deserves huge praise for getting things going and (keeping things going too), we had the support from Ben Shave (a Watford fan) from the wider football trust network to show us how to operate the formalities in order to get established.
I am pretty sure that at the time the trust was being established Airman was still employed at Charlton.
So why did the trust happen?
At the time there were concerns about the financial strength of Charlton, and whether we were heading for administration. The example of Portsmouth was right in front of us, and at the time there was the brewing shenanigans at Coventry, there was also the perceived success at Swansea.
The financial concerns also linked at the time (very heavily) as to whether we would be having a future at the Valley itself, not least because the Valley was one of the few assets the then owners seemed to have. The financial concerns were also about investment in the team. It was felt strongly at the time that if things went belly up the Trust would be the only game in town, like at Portsmouth. A lot of the early days of the trust were played out during the 2012 Olympics
Another huge reason the trust happened was because of the wider Trust movement within football, it was felt to be (and is) a credible way of fans acting together for the club(s) they love, a co-operative network was out there, and mutual support for the venture was available.
I know, because I was there, that great pains were taken during those early times of our Trust to not be formed to be overtly confrontational with the parent club, whilst also being prepared to argue and fight for positive reasons where possible. If the Trust had started as an opposition body to the club it would have alienated fans, and if the Trust had had a softer approach then it would be accused of being too weak, toothless, and in bed with the directors.
It is to the huge credit to those who have established databases, controlled money, created publications, run surveys, established websites, grown the membership and created the credibility it has. The trust is easy to snipe at from the sidelines than to do the work, and indeed in the supporters statement thread there are plenty of snipers firing off in all directions.
Airman says above that no group can purport to represent all the fans and he is right of course. The trust membership is only a relatively small proportion of Charlton fans, but it is the biggest of any organised body of Charlton fans, and as such it is the closest thing we have to a representative fans body in this new football landscape.
The Oak group are totally different. created as a reaction to events, created by fans who care about the club, however clumsily it was created, many people were beginning to feel disassociated from their club for loads of reasons (extensively detailed elsewhere).
I think it is wrong to assume the Oak group came about because people were annoyed that their power and influence was slipping away, or to sell magazines, or to lord it over other supporters, or to undermine the Trust, or to air personal grievances, or to bring down Charlton Athletic. The trust was formed by a collection of concerned fans, the Oak group was formed by a collection of concerned fans. The trust has gone on to grow very impressively, the Oak group is very unlikely to follow anything like the same trajectory.
However it is possible, without employing Orwellian doublethink, to believe that all pro-active efforts by fans, be they individuals or groups, are a good thing. If the new owners know how much we want to be engaged as a fan base, how much nous and expertise the fan base have, how articulate the fan base can be, and how passionately they care...from whatever source be it VIP's or individuals writing in, then it surely can't be a bad thing can it?
Perhaps the biggest indicator of satisfaction/dissatisfaction is not what any individual or group says, but bums on seats at the Valley.
Let's see where we are on and off the pitch in 12 months time for the landscape has certainly changed in the last 12 months.
Meire/Powell/Murray were asked in public at the VIP meeting, whether Powell picked the team, without interference and all 3 confirmed he did.
If Powell isn't going to say otherwise publically (and he'd be shooting himself in the foot if he did) and RD is extremely unlikely to admit this in public, then what's the point ?
We all know he oversees transfers and why wouldn't he ?
We all know he wants to use the network of players, that's the whole basis of his plan.
until the trust had got to the table with RD and KM and the initial relationship was formed , and they had their chance to approach the questions that most want answering, The relationship between RD and CAFC his feelings on where we sit in his network, the financing and the whole other questions henry has put across ( I agree with all his should the trust want to nick them) etc, there was no need for a 2nd group to establish and request meetings, there was definitely no need for you to suggest an ST boycott, you of all people understand the need for that money to come in during the time period it does, that was a real bad thing you were championing, without telling all of us why you felt that this was needed
infact it was a bit treacherous considering your old position and knowledge of how that money helps keep things ticking over
the most important thing for CAFC fans imo is that the trust exists , and that it is well supported 1000 is nothing we should be at 4 or 5k but the apathy of cafc fans to accept shit since the days of the VP and the days before it have always astounded me ,
when pardew and Parkinson were so woefully inept when Murray was making mistake after mistake even when he was way out of line over wendy , no one really reacted
when the trust was formed I was nervy I believed it would be about individuals and they would get far too close to Murray ( I still think this is a problem that may happen, Muzza courts his audience well and is good at it, so those there be wary )
But the individuals in the trust running it , are working tirelessly for what they believe in and they are disagreeing and arguing which imo is brilliant, no organisation should run without fallout and objection
I do object to Kevin resigning , I object to those on the board having their name on the G21 list as I want RD and KM to meet the trust first as a controlled and managed body of people bound by rules and a need to be professional
Football club trusts are all over the country and the name Trust is widely associated with many clubs and I want RD to realise that the Trust is a part of many across the uk's 92 league clubs and if treated in the right way is a hugely beneficial body for both club and fans
the creation of G21 and to publicize it in the way you did and to run it along side an attack on cafc and RD by yourself created a very uneasy feel amongst its support base at a time when the majority of us don't see the need and are waiting with anticipation to surviving in this league and watching RD and his vision, just because its different doesn't make it wrong in the same way it doesn't make it right
It just seemed that the G21 were jumping the gun. The opening post was completely negative, ignoring some of the work the Trust were already doing in building up relationships (yet somehow getting tacit approval of the statement) and to a certain extent making them sound irrelevant to what the G21 wanted to achieve - and we still don't really know what that is.
Then came the "if they don't play ball" threat, which along with the championing of a ST boycott, before contact had even been made, just seemed completely out of proportion just two days after CP had been sacked - which was purported to be the catalyst for the meeting.
On top of that with statements like 'across the generations' and the fact it was by invitation only it seemed to me more like a januis clausis meeting than an open discussion - with other Charlton fans being excluded.
Bottom line is no one can argue like a family, but they're still family.
It's important to bear in mind that this discussion about team selection may well have been taking place against the background of two important factors.
First, I suspect that Duchatelet, or more accurately his advisors, seriously underestimated the standard of play in the Championship and assumed that the players "sent" to Charlton would make a difference. Perhaps they just screwed up, but its understandable that when these players weren't being selected Duchatelet wanted to know why not.
Second, it's entirely plausible that Duchatelet wasn't sure he could trust Powell. "Is it true that these players don't warrant a place in the side or is Powell just making a point?", is a question Duchatelet may have been asking. This uncertainty, perhaps even a suspicion, would have increased the tension at a time when there were probably difficult conversations about transfer policy and the independent reports Duchatelet was receiving about the team's performances, for example.
I'm not at all surprised that Jose Riga has picked Ben Hamer ahead of Thuram as did Powell. Both men have made decisions they thought were right and not unexpectedly they've agreed on this one. There's no pressure on Riga though. Duchatelet has no reason to doubt him.
This interpretation would suggest that the tension around player selection was unnecessary and unfortunate, but perhaps nobody's fault. I doubt very much that it's why Powell was sacked though.
If we simply take Duchatelet's statement about Powell at face value then the explanation is a very simple one. Powell wanted more control over footballing matters than Duchatelet was prepared to give him. Credit to Powell for not accepting a job he wasn't really comfortable with and credit to Duchatelet for making the right decision for the Club, despite it's obvious unpopularity. It was the right decision because ongoing disagreement and tension, potentially preventing either Powell or Duchatelet running the Club in the way they wanted, was not in the interests of the Club in the medium term. Camels, horses and committees spring to mind. Again, this interpretation is consistent with Duchatelet respecting Powell as a coach and wanting him to stay on, but only on his terms, of course.
We don't know what's really going on - or at least I don't - but based on the information in the public domain it does seem to me that everything we've seen so far, the arrival of players from Standard Liege, albeit perhaps ill-judged, the sales of Kermorgant and Stephens and the sacking of Chris Powell were logical and rational decisions all made, in Duchatelet's view, in the best interests of Charlton Athletic. And only Charlton Athletic. There is no real evidence of any other agenda, let alone anything sinister.
I'm not suggesting that there is no reason for concern. It's far from clear how the network will add value, for example, and there has to be a risk that the philosophical belief that it is possible to succeed without losing significant sums of money, at least initially, will lead to failure. However, as I have posted elsewhere, if that happens it seems to me that it will be more a case of the mad professor who blows up his own laboratory than Dr Evil.
To those who hold a different view or, alternatively, are much more suspicious I'd ask two questions. Genuine questions. First, what is the economic logic of buying Charlton as a feeder Club for Standard Liege? How would such a plan actually work? Second, what is the logic of buying Charlton and then forcing the Club to play loanees from Standard Liege who aren't good enough to play on merit. How does that help anybody? Chelsea currently have around 25 players out on loan, all across Europe, at Clubs selected for each player. Why can't Standard use the loan market if they want surplus players to play?
PS I'd expect that Chris Powell has been paid off and signed some kind of compromise agreement. Or that this is being organised. Doubt he'll say anything in public that isn't agreed with the Club.
I am still concerned by the Liege guy who said that if there are players not good enough to play in the Liege team, they go to Charlton to get experience. Now I know that is what clubs do, what we have done with Pope at York for example. It suggests to me, not so much the feeder club idea, but more the reserve idea, to be a proving ground for players.
It was always nice if you could win the Football Combination, but at the end of the day where you finished in the combination was no biggie. If we are obliged to play players from other network clubs to train them up, and maybe ship them on, where do the results matter?
Yes it would be nice if this experiment got us results, even success, but maybe the thought is that if Charlton are developing the players then results are no biggie as long as those players have added value.
I would love to be rid of this concern, and would love to think that success for Charlton was absolutely the overarching aim here. Events obviously will indicate the direction of the network, but activities at Charlton may be clouded by the notion I (and others?) have that decisions are not necessarily going to be geared towards success.