It sounds like one of our leafleting volunteers might have been just a tad over-eager to express his own opinion yesterday ! The meeting is open to all opinions. The format and process for the meeting can now be seen at:
It is the mood of instability created by the irrational behaviour of management which has caused the need for the meeting, not poor results.
We have lived with periods of poor results for years without anything like the current mood being created. I think the efforts shown yesterday may have been down to the players agreeing to put aside their own frustration and doing what they are paid to do as professionals. I am sceptical that Luzon suddenly inspired the players.
We have no reason to believe a string of good results will not be interrupted by a sudden unexplainable exit/influx of players/managers that sours everything. Would anyone be surprised if Luzon was suddenly sacked, if Watt was sent back to SL and Vetokele sold. This is the issue for me and I suspect those who are moved to engage with Wednesday's meeting, it has not gone away. It will be sad if people see the meeting as over-reaction to a poor run of form, as those less emotionally involved might think.
It is the mood of instability created by the irrational behaviour of management which has caused the need for the meeting, not poor results.
We have lived with periods of poor results for years without anything like the current mood being created. I think the efforts shown yesterday may have been down to the players agreeing to put aside their own frustration and doing what they are paid to do as professionals. I am sceptical that Luzon suddenly inspired the players.
We have no reason to believe a string of good results will not be interrupted by a sudden unexplainable exit/influx of players/managers that sours everything. Would anyone be surprised if Luzon was suddenly sacked, if Watt was sent back to SL and Vetokele sold. This is the issue for me and I suspect those who are moved to engage with Wednesday's meeting, it has not gone away. It will be sad if people see the meeting as over-reaction to a poor run of form, as those less emotionally involved might think.
As said, a poor run has fueled the negativity introduced by the SL/Belgians who quickly arrived to say Roland is the anti-christ. Players come and go. So do managers. Powell was sacked because results were poor. Riga was a stop gap. Bob was sacked because results were poor. Players have gone because they found a better deal elsewhere or were deemed not good enough. From what I can see, we have a bunch of supporters who are scaremongering based on imagination rather than reality. Have fun copying what a select group of SL fans seems to do.
The reality will be reflected in attendance's. Under Slater and Co Chris Powell was there to take the flack and gain credibility in the eyes of the fans, now we have Luzon whose credibility level is zero in my eyes, and judging only by individual conversations with others his credibility is very low more generally.
Yesterday showed that if the team give the fans a reason to get behind them they will. But the issues we have with the ownership are still there. We had no striker on the bench FFS. We have been saying for a while that we were not far off, but the strengthening of the squad that was needed did not occur. We have had to play too many youngsters too quickly over he course of the season through injuries and lack of form, and we know our best eleven is a match for anybody.
What was good is that we have seen the fight we needed to see that gives us hope that the impending disaster may not occur. We know we don't have a right to run the club, but as stakeholders, we do have the right to see/expect it to be run better and to be treated with a bit more respect and recieve better communication. Hopefully lessons have and can be learned from both sides, but if the team is responding finally, whilst the issues we have remain, our approach is bound o be more conciliatory. Only one game though! A defeat against Wigan and we are back to square one!
LOL. Roland bought the club. He spent cash on infrastructure and the team. If things go Pete Tong it's his money at risk. So many, were quick to be negative about Roland. The instant arrival of naysayers from SL bringing messages of doom and gloom was lapped up by many now joining the toys out of the pram brigade. A bad run seems to have been jumped on by those brainwashed by these anti Roland views (and airman brown who seems to be on a one man crusade to attack Charlton's ownership for years). I wonder how many attending the meeting would be willing to help Roland cover the losses we make this financial year even with our supposed skeleton squad?
Ps i before e except after c. ;-)
Providing they are not criminals, it doesn't really matter that much who owns the club if they run it in a professional and businesslike way. Slater and Jimenez did that for the best part of 18 months. After that they didn't and the two executive directors left the board and quit their jobs because of that. They were in a better decision to judge what was going on than me, at least initially. I certainly support what they did, but it hardly started with me, despite the desperate attempts to argue that on here and many months of denial that they had had any problem at all, which ultimately was shown to be complete bollocks.
As far as Roland is concerned, he has failed the professional and businesslike test because he has repeatedly interfered in team selection and his two leading executives, Luzon and Meire, appear to be out of their depth. It was clear to me from what went on with Powell that he was unlikely to run the club in a sensible way in future. Sooner or later that was always likely to become manifest on the pitch, as indeed it has, but the results are the symptom of the problem not the problem itself, which in my view is the owner.
The possibility that the owner will revise his behaviour in the light of experience reduces over time, but unless he is very stupid or mad it must remain a possibility, so I think the objective remains to get the club run in a professional and businesslike way, which it is not at present, rather than simply replace the owner, even if in the end it probably amounts to the same thing. Ask yourself why so many staff continue to leave with no replacement job. It's not because they are happy in their work.
We all want the team to stay up above anything because the return of League One football would be a disaster from which the club might not recover and if we see the necessary improvement in results then the current clamour will die down, but the problem will remain that RD has not shown that he has a viable business strategy, employs inadequate executives and makes arbitrary and ill-informed decisions that consequently often have poor outcomes. They cost him money and damage the club.
In all likelihood unless he changes direction or sells, we will be back here in 12 months' time having the same discussion even if we do stay up - and no doubt the same people will still be telling us that everything is fine and any discontent is all stirred up by a handful of people who are followed by the rest as if they have no minds of their own. It's hugely insulting to the many committed supporters who are extremely anxious about the future of the club and for perfectly valid reasons.
I've been worried about the future of the club since I started going in 1961. With the exception of the early Murray years that has been a constant. We are at least not in danger of going out of business under RD. None of us know his plan or how it will pan out. One year in to his ownership and I think we are in a better place than before his arrival. I agree that's the owner has certainly not endeared himself to us fans in his lack of "bedside manner" but I think a lot of this disproportionate dissent is a case of too many noses have been put out of joint by his reluctance to engage in the "Charlton way". My jury is still out.
It is the mood of instability created by the irrational behaviour of management which has caused the need for the meeting, not poor results.
We have lived with periods of poor results for years without anything like the current mood being created. I think the efforts shown yesterday may have been down to the players agreeing to put aside their own frustration and doing what they are paid to do as professionals. I am sceptical that Luzon suddenly inspired the players.
We have no reason to believe a string of good results will not be interrupted by a sudden unexplainable exit/influx of players/managers that sours everything. Would anyone be surprised if Luzon was suddenly sacked, if Watt was sent back to SL and Vetokele sold. This is the issue for me and I suspect those who are moved to engage with Wednesday's meeting, it has not gone away. It will be sad if people see the meeting as over-reaction to a poor run of form, as those less emotionally involved might think.
As said, a poor run has fueled the negativity introduced by the SL/Belgians who quickly arrived to say Roland is the anti-christ. Players come and go. So do managers. Powell was sacked because results were poor. Riga was a stop gap. Bob was sacked because results were poor. Players have gone because they found a better deal elsewhere or were deemed not good enough. From what I can see, we have a bunch of supporters who are scaremongering based on imagination rather than reality. Have fun copying what a select group of SL fans seems to do.
As an aside, did this happen under Slater and co?
Your remarks are a distortion of the viewpoints expressed on here and elsewhere since RD arrived.
In the earlier part of the year most fans paid no attention whatsoever to the views from Standard. Indeed, i'm not sure that many do now. In fact the majority view here was that RD's scheme is all about Standard as the mother ship. It was only a sustained effort by the Trust, presenting the views of the Standard Socios and respected journalists, plus a few Belgian Lifers who are mainly not Standard fans, who helped people understand that Standard is not progressing either and that the fans are mutinous. When you have 5,000 literally taking to the streets I don't think that can be called a "select group.". In fact the Socios are not in favour of the more violent demonstrations, nor the barging into RD's office, while the journalist Douglas de Coninck (who is BTW interviewing RD this Monday) helps us put the more Utopian views of the Socios into a more practical context.
Those organising the meeting have minds of their own, and they don't presume to speak for all shades of opinion. A key objective of the meeting is to clarify the strength of shades of opinion across the fan base. But if you suggest it is wrong to speak to and learn from people who have the longest and deepest experience of RD, then I in turn suggest that is a very ignorant way to approach a difficult and complex issue.
I am in agreement with the need for a meeting so supporters views can be nerd. However I am very concerned bout some peoples objectives. As some of the leaflets were being given out he said "come to the meeting to get the belgium out" I am 100% behind getting supporters views hard and finding ways of achieving that. However if its what this guy says I am not wasting my time. Can w get some clarification please Is this an open discusing or an excuse for some peoples private agenda
I'm not sure who it is you're referring to, but there is no pre-concluded outcome just waiting for the meeting to rubber stamp. It genuinely is open and I think we need all views, some people may say "Roland out at all costs" others (including me) might not be at that point yet. The point of the meeting is to give everyone the chance to air their views and just as importantly have their views listend to and respected.
Fair enough but it is a pity that one or two of the leaflet distributors felt the need to state this. We need all sides of the story to be discussed and, provided the meeting is well controlled, I am sure this will happen.
I feel like I am in the minority as I do not believe the answer is to get rid of the 'Belgians'. What we need is constructive dialogue as to the way forward and clear communication channels. It may well be that RD will not go for this, but we need to try as a first step.
I made no secret at the outset that I believe there is an opportunity for the 'network' to succeed. It is a very similar philosophy to that of the company for which I worked for 3 decades before going out on my own. Leverage your global resources for the benefit of the company and staff. Move people around so that both they and the company benefit. Develop and utilise internal young staff rather than always looking on the market. Bring in outside experienced resources as and when it will be beneficial. I learnt much more by having the opportunity to move around the company and work in dozens of countries around the world, as did many of my colleagues. Is football any different to business? It is certainly more 'emotional' but you still need the basic building blocks to produce a success.
Unfortunately the abuse of FFP may have blown this out of the window., but we need to know what is now planned by RD. Working together will have far more chance of success.
Wednesday is am important meeting and I look forward to attending.
It is the mood of instability created by the irrational behaviour of management which has caused the need for the meeting, not poor results.
We have lived with periods of poor results for years without anything like the current mood being created. I think the efforts shown yesterday may have been down to the players agreeing to put aside their own frustration and doing what they are paid to do as professionals. I am sceptical that Luzon suddenly inspired the players.
We have no reason to believe a string of good results will not be interrupted by a sudden unexplainable exit/influx of players/managers that sours everything. Would anyone be surprised if Luzon was suddenly sacked, if Watt was sent back to SL and Vetokele sold. This is the issue for me and I suspect those who are moved to engage with Wednesday's meeting, it has not gone away. It will be sad if people see the meeting as over-reaction to a poor run of form, as those less emotionally involved might think.
As said, a poor run has fueled the negativity introduced by the SL/Belgians who quickly arrived to say Roland is the anti-christ. Players come and go. So do managers. Powell was sacked because results were poor. Riga was a stop gap. Bob was sacked because results were poor. Players have gone because they found a better deal elsewhere or were deemed not good enough. From what I can see, we have a bunch of supporters who are scaremongering based on imagination rather than reality. Have fun copying what a select group of SL fans seems to do.
As an aside, did this happen under Slater and co?
Powell was not sacked because of poor results. It was because Powell would not accept the owners rule on network player recruitment process. Riga was not presented to fans as a stop gap either.
So there are a bunch of supporters that don't share your view of the perfect lovely world of 'Roland', so of course 'All' of them must have an imaginary problem. OMG. Surely you should put one of your captions up telling them 'BYE' as you do with others that won't tow the network line, stating there not renewing their ST.
It is the mood of instability created by the irrational behaviour of management which has caused the need for the meeting, not poor results.
We have lived with periods of poor results for years without anything like the current mood being created. I think the efforts shown yesterday may have been down to the players agreeing to put aside their own frustration and doing what they are paid to do as professionals. I am sceptical that Luzon suddenly inspired the players.
We have no reason to believe a string of good results will not be interrupted by a sudden unexplainable exit/influx of players/managers that sours everything. Would anyone be surprised if Luzon was suddenly sacked, if Watt was sent back to SL and Vetokele sold. This is the issue for me and I suspect those who are moved to engage with Wednesday's meeting, it has not gone away. It will be sad if people see the meeting as over-reaction to a poor run of form, as those less emotionally involved might think.
As said, a poor run has fueled the negativity introduced by the SL/Belgians who quickly arrived to say Roland is the anti-christ. Players come and go. So do managers. Powell was sacked because results were poor. Riga was a stop gap. Bob was sacked because results were poor. Players have gone because they found a better deal elsewhere or were deemed not good enough. From what I can see, we have a bunch of supporters who are scaremongering based on imagination rather than reality. Have fun copying what a select group of SL fans seems to do.
Doesn't bode well does it. People giving the leaflets out already setting what I think will be the tone of the meeting.
However well intentioned the organisers are, I still think it will get hi-jacked and descend into a Beglian bashing session.
Someone asked earlier whether I was relenting and was going to attend. Affraid not. I work in the building opposite but will be getting on my bike and riding home at 5.30.
Already on record as saying good luck and hope it succeeds but don't think it will.
"Ask yourself why so many staff continue to leave with no replacement job. It's not because they are happy in their work"
AB has highlighted that the problems are also behind the scenes at The Valley.
My feeling is that in addition to the reduction in staffing levels, appointment of replacements for those making the decision to leave is nowhere near as rigorous a process as it was in seasons past. This is in no way a reflection on new members of staff however. The time & number of personnel involved in the training of said arrivals may be the problem but there are worrying signs that the infrastructure within certain departments is far from stable.
As an example, a fellow Lifer experienced considerable problems at the end of last week regarding her subscription to Valley Review. She suffered being passed from one member of staff to another, told by one employee that she didn't even know there was such a thing as a subscription, told that the person she had dealt with before Christmas had now left and finally promises to call her back were not honoured. This is a long term supporter who does understand why such problems arise ( although not condoning them) but what kind of service are newer fans receiving and what will their perception of our Club be as a result ?
I'm also aware that some emails sent to staff are not answered, let alone acknowledged which , KM apart maybe, is surely not best business practice ? It merely serves to frustrate & anger supporters who require an answer to their request or problem and emphasises the poor level of communication between Club and its paying customers.
Once again, I'd emphasise that this is NOT a criticism of staff in general at The Valley but on staffing levels & possible lack of training as a result. AB also mentioned that executive directors have left their posts & my perception is a harassed, relatively inexperienced CEO ( if that is Katrien's title) trying hard to keep her head above water with insufficient support. We are also told that she deals with the legal aspects of signing/loaning players.....A case of too few chiefs and not enough Indians ( no offence meant) ?
We want to be proud of our Club, both on the pitch & for the service it provides for its fans. At the moment, thanks mainly to the players themselves and said fans, the former shows signs of improvement. But the latter deserves closer attention sooner rather than later ....we need to hold onto those fans we already have & not alienate them.
While there are serious questions to be asked about the way the club is being run, and the transfer policy, these things can quickly degenerate into moans about the lack of striker on the bench, or not marking properly at corners. Having started going regularly in the early 90s, having a thin squad that struggled to score goals and regularly sold its best players is hardly new to me. Yes the transfer policy is a mess, but to be fair to the owners, the attacking front 4 (Watt, Igor, JBG and Bulot) were all network players or RD era signings, and back in September when the team was beating Derby and playing good football, everyone was (on balance) fairly happy. If we had beaten Millwall, Cardiff and Blackpool at home (which we should have) and were comfortably in upper mid table, would this meeting have even been planned?
Very well put Fanny. A lot of fans just look at the playing side of things and not the infrastructure of the club. The two must not only be staffed correctly to be a success but also operate in a professional manner. Just as a star player leaving will weaken the team, a key member of staff leaving has the same effect.
My mates had come to see Michael Turner and he was dropped from their 18 so came and watched the game with us. First thing he said when he came up was "what's going on down here , I've just spoken to a few of your boys in the tunnel and they're not happy with what's going on here"
The players aren't happy with the set up and nor do I believe the fans should be
If anyone can tell me they have the same feeling for the Charlton team as they did just a couple of years back then they are clearly not regular attendees of our matches or they're robots without much heart !
In all seriousness it just doesn't feel right But as said above all sides of the story should be heard Unfortunately can't make the meeting but hope it will run smoothly
"Ask yourself why so many staff continue to leave with no replacement job. It's not because they are happy in their work"
AB has highlighted that the problems are also behind the scenes at The Valley.
My feeling is that in addition to the reduction in staffing levels, appointment of replacements for those making the decision to leave is nowhere near as rigorous a process as it was in seasons past. This is in no way a reflection on new members of staff however. The time & number of personnel involved in the training of said arrivals may be the problem but there are worrying signs that the infrastructure within certain departments is far from stable.
As an example, a fellow Lifer experienced considerable problems at the end of last week regarding her subscription to Valley Review. She suffered being passed from one member of staff to another, told by one employee that she didn't even know there was such a thing as a subscription, told that the person she had dealt with before Christmas had now left and finally promises to call her back were not honoured. This is a long term supporter who does understand why such problems arise ( although not condoning them) but what kind of service are newer fans receiving and what will their perception of our Club be as a result ?
I'm also aware that some emails sent to staff are not answered, let alone acknowledged which , KM apart maybe, is surely not best business practice ? It merely serves to frustrate & anger supporters who require an answer to their request or problem and emphasises the poor level of communication between Club and its paying customers.
Once again, I'd emphasise that this is NOT a criticism of staff in general at The Valley but on staffing levels & possible lack of training as a result. AB also mentioned that executive directors have left their posts & my perception is a harassed, relatively inexperienced CEO ( if that is Katrien's title) trying hard to keep her head above water with insufficient support. We are also told that she deals with the legal aspects of signing/loaning players.....A case of too few chiefs and not enough Indians ( no offence meant) ?
We want to be proud of our Club, both on the pitch & for the service it provides for its fans. At the moment, thanks mainly to the players themselves and said fans, the former shows signs of improvement. But the latter deserves closer attention sooner rather than later ....we need to hold onto those fans we already have & not alienate them.
I agree and the programme sale, although maybe not that important in the grand scheme of things, is a prime example of an unnecessary problem created at the top of the club, by removing the sales company, handled inadequately from the start and allowed to deteriorate further, culminating in a laughable situation Tuesday night where there was no one selling in Floyd Road and Ransom Walk from about 7.20pm (just one at 7pm, who sold out) and fans arriving in the busiest period were completely confused as to what was going on. This then spills into problems for the control room trying to deal with multiple enquiries all round the ground, even though it was a paltry crowd. Even where sellers are present they still don't have the right equipment.
The club has had three months to sort this out and it is still a shambles. I know what the commission arrangements were under the previous sales regime and there is no way the club is better off financially, still less in terms of service to supporters and perception of its professionalism. As minuted, it was discussed at the FF, but it's actually got worse since then. It was better yesterday, but the same situation at ten to three. It's just a trivial example, but why has no one got a grip of this?
Doesn't bode well does it. People giving the leaflets out already setting what I think will be the tone of the meeting.
However well intentioned the organisers are, I still think it will get hi-jacked and descend into a Beglian bashing session.
Someone asked earlier whether I was relenting and was going to attend. Affraid not. I work in the building opposite but will be getting on my bike and riding home at 5.30.
Already on record as saying good luck and hope it succeeds but don't think it will.
I think you are referring to myself Clem, yes I thought you worked in the Contact centre, and I can only again state that this is not intended to be an anti Belgian, but then I am not speaking, and as mentioned before, besides the chairman, one trust spokesperson will speak for the same time allocated as every other group/ individual. Of course if a specific question is asked of the trust, or any other person there I assume they will be able to have the right of reply. You may find that someone wishes to support the network principle, and RD. That is there opportunity and right to do so. Some of the volunteers were doing this for the first time yesterday, some are even from this very site, and are like me and yourself a supporter. I want to listen to what supporters have to say, the trust are just providing the platform, and the opportunity to do this. I certainly do not have all the answers, but I do have some questions. You yourself have quite a few by your recent postings, a pity you cannot come along and share them with your fellow supporters.
I think it is important to come to the meeting as at this point, I believe it is about finding out what fans want. Yes there are fans who want the Belgians out at any cost on the basis that any owners can't be as bad as this lot, however there are also many who want to find ways of creating a dialogue with Duchatalet to move Charlton forward not the network.
If you are not "a Belgian out" then use this to inspire you to attend the meeting to ensure that both sides are heard and your views are represented.
Which is why the meeting needed to be organised, it's not about Belgian bashing it's a meeting to establish what people have concerns over.
Many people i spoke with yesterday are not happy with the results or what is going on behind the scenes, people are concerned about how the club has decided to ignore Supporters and adopt it's own non communicative approach.
It's unnecessary, damaging and the club should at the very least be prepared to respond to the concerns of the supporters.
"Ask yourself why so many staff continue to leave with no replacement job. It's not because they are happy in their work"
AB has highlighted that the problems are also behind the scenes at The Valley.
My feeling is that in addition to the reduction in staffing levels, appointment of replacements for those making the decision to leave is nowhere near as rigorous a process as it was in seasons past. This is in no way a reflection on new members of staff however. The time & number of personnel involved in the training of said arrivals may be the problem but there are worrying signs that the infrastructure within certain departments is far from stable.
As an example, a fellow Lifer experienced considerable problems at the end of last week regarding her subscription to Valley Review. She suffered being passed from one member of staff to another, told by one employee that she didn't even know there was such a thing as a subscription, told that the person she had dealt with before Christmas had now left and finally promises to call her back were not honoured. This is a long term supporter who does understand why such problems arise ( although not condoning them) but what kind of service are newer fans receiving and what will their perception of our Club be as a result ?
I'm also aware that some emails sent to staff are not answered, let alone acknowledged which , KM apart maybe, is surely not best business practice ? It merely serves to frustrate & anger supporters who require an answer to their request or problem and emphasises the poor level of communication between Club and its paying customers.
Once again, I'd emphasise that this is NOT a criticism of staff in general at The Valley but on staffing levels & possible lack of training as a result. AB also mentioned that executive directors have left their posts & my perception is a harassed, relatively inexperienced CEO ( if that is Katrien's title) trying hard to keep her head above water with insufficient support. We are also told that she deals with the legal aspects of signing/loaning players.....A case of too few chiefs and not enough Indians ( no offence meant) ?
We want to be proud of our Club, both on the pitch & for the service it provides for its fans. At the moment, thanks mainly to the players themselves and said fans, the former shows signs of improvement. But the latter deserves closer attention sooner rather than later ....we need to hold onto those fans we already have & not alienate them.
I agree and the programme sale, although maybe not that important in the grand scheme of things, is a prime example of an unnecessary problem created at the top of the club, by removing the sales company, handled inadequately from the start and allowed to deteriorate further, culminating in a laughable situation Tuesday night where there was no one selling in Floyd Road and Ransom Walk from about 7.20pm (just one at 7pm, who sold out) and fans arriving in the busiest period were completely confused as to what was going on. This then spills into problems for the control room trying to deal with multiple enquiries all round the ground, even though it was a paltry crowd. Even where sellers are present they still don't have the right equipment.
The club has had three months to sort this out and it is still a shambles. I know what the commission arrangements were under the previous sales regime and there is no way the club is better off financially, still less in terms of service to supporters and perception of its professionalism. As minuted, it was discussed at the FF, but it's actually got worse since then. It was better yesterday, but the same situation at ten to three. It's just a trivial example, but why has no one got a grip of this?
I heard someone yesterday saying there were no programme sellers outside the ground as he walked through the same turnstile as me, to lower west, he asked where could he get one, but didn't get any answer, I assume the collector of tickets/vouchers wouldn't know, but where were the sellers? Didn't see any myself either.
I am in agreement with the need for a meeting so supporters views can be nerd. However I am very concerned bout some peoples objectives. As some of the leaflets were being given out he said "come to the meeting to get the belgium out" I am 100% behind getting supporters views hard and finding ways of achieving that. However if its what this guy says I am not wasting my time. Can w get some clarification please Is this an open discusing or an excuse for some peoples private agenda
I'm not sure who it is you're referring to, but there is no pre-concluded outcome just waiting for the meeting to rubber stamp. It genuinely is open and I think we need all views, some people may say "Roland out at all costs" others (including me) might not be at that point yet. The point of the meeting is to give everyone the chance to air their views and just as importantly have their views listend to and respected.
Fair enough but it is a pity that one or two of the leaflet distributors felt the need to state this. We need all sides of the story to be discussed and, provided the meeting is well controlled, I am sure this will happen.
I feel like I am in the minority as I do not believe the answer is to get rid of the 'Belgians'. What we need is constructive dialogue as to the way forward and clear communication channels. It may well be that RD will not go for this, but we need to try as a first step.
I made no secret at the outset that I believe there is an opportunity for the 'network' to succeed. It is a very similar philosophy to that of the company for which I worked for 3 decades before going out on my own. Leverage your global resources for the benefit of the company and staff. Move people around so that both they and the company benefit. Develop and utilise internal young staff rather than always looking on the market. Bring in outside experienced resources as and when it will be beneficial. I learnt much more by having the opportunity to move around the company and work in dozens of countries around the world, as did many of my colleagues. Is football any different to business? It is certainly more 'emotional' but you still need the basic building blocks to produce a success.
Unfortunately the abuse of FFP may have blown this out of the window., but we need to know what is now planned by RD. Working together will have far more chance of success.
Wednesday is am important meeting and I look forward to attending.
Presumably at your company the reason the experience was so successful is because everyone - the employees, management and stakeholders - understood the business plan, they bought into it and knew what success looked like and how it would be measured.
If the guy who ran your company just made seemingly random decisions as part of a plan that none of you understood, with seemingly counter productive results then your perception would be quite different.
I've said before that whilst I would probably prefer that Charlton weren't part of one, I think a network model could succeed but I think what is fueling all of the consternation amongst the supporter base is that because this model is fairly new and unique we don't know what the goals are, we don't know what success looks like and therefore none of us can buy into it. I'm not saying the fans have any right to demand that RD reveals the intimate workings of his financial accounts, but simply explaining what his vision is and what he hopes to achieve both with Charlton and more broadly with his "network" isn't asking too much.
"Ask yourself why so many staff continue to leave with no replacement job. It's not because they are happy in their work"
AB has highlighted that the problems are also behind the scenes at The Valley.
My feeling is that in addition to the reduction in staffing levels, appointment of replacements for those making the decision to leave is nowhere near as rigorous a process as it was in seasons past. This is in no way a reflection on new members of staff however. The time & number of personnel involved in the training of said arrivals may be the problem but there are worrying signs that the infrastructure within certain departments is far from stable.
As an example, a fellow Lifer experienced considerable problems at the end of last week regarding her subscription to Valley Review. She suffered being passed from one member of staff to another, told by one employee that she didn't even know there was such a thing as a subscription, told that the person she had dealt with before Christmas had now left and finally promises to call her back were not honoured. This is a long term supporter who does understand why such problems arise ( although not condoning them) but what kind of service are newer fans receiving and what will their perception of our Club be as a result ?
I'm also aware that some emails sent to staff are not answered, let alone acknowledged which , KM apart maybe, is surely not best business practice ? It merely serves to frustrate & anger supporters who require an answer to their request or problem and emphasises the poor level of communication between Club and its paying customers.
Once again, I'd emphasise that this is NOT a criticism of staff in general at The Valley but on staffing levels & possible lack of training as a result. AB also mentioned that executive directors have left their posts & my perception is a harassed, relatively inexperienced CEO ( if that is Katrien's title) trying hard to keep her head above water with insufficient support. We are also told that she deals with the legal aspects of signing/loaning players.....A case of too few chiefs and not enough Indians ( no offence meant) ?
We want to be proud of our Club, both on the pitch & for the service it provides for its fans. At the moment, thanks mainly to the players themselves and said fans, the former shows signs of improvement. But the latter deserves closer attention sooner rather than later ....we need to hold onto those fans we already have & not alienate them.
I agree and the programme sale, although maybe not that important in the grand scheme of things, is a prime example of an unnecessary problem created at the top of the club, by removing the sales company, handled inadequately from the start and allowed to deteriorate further, culminating in a laughable situation Tuesday night where there was no one selling in Floyd Road and Ransom Walk from about 7.20pm (just one at 7pm, who sold out) and fans arriving in the busiest period were completely confused as to what was going on. This then spills into problems for the control room trying to deal with multiple enquiries all round the ground, even though it was a paltry crowd. Even where sellers are present they still don't have the right equipment.
The club has had three months to sort this out and it is still a shambles. I know what the commission arrangements were under the previous sales regime and there is no way the club is better off financially, still less in terms of service to supporters and perception of its professionalism. As minuted, it was discussed at the FF, but it's actually got worse since then. It was better yesterday, but the same situation at ten to three. It's just a trivial example, but why has no one got a grip of this?
I heard someone yesterday saying there were no programme sellers outside the ground as he walked through the same turnstile as me, to lower west, he asked where could he get one, but didn't get any answer, I assume the collector of tickets/vouchers wouldn't know, but where were the sellers? Didn't see any myself either.
I eventually found one outside the North Stand, but without the kiosks they're impossible to see even if they are there! A right shambles, and one which must be costing programme sales!
Comments
http://www.castrust.org/
We have lived with periods of poor results for years without anything like the current mood being created. I think the efforts shown yesterday may have been down to the players agreeing to put aside their own frustration and doing what they are paid to do as professionals. I am sceptical that Luzon suddenly inspired the players.
We have no reason to believe a string of good results will not be interrupted by a sudden unexplainable exit/influx of players/managers that sours everything. Would anyone be surprised if Luzon was suddenly sacked, if Watt was sent back to SL and Vetokele sold. This is the issue for me and I suspect those who are moved to engage with Wednesday's meeting, it has not gone away. It will be sad if people see the meeting as over-reaction to a poor run of form, as those less emotionally involved might think.
Players come and go. So do managers. Powell was sacked because results were poor. Riga was a stop gap. Bob was sacked because results were poor. Players have gone because they found a better deal elsewhere or were deemed not good enough.
From what I can see, we have a bunch of supporters who are scaremongering based on imagination rather than reality.
Have fun copying what a select group of SL fans seems to do.
As an aside, did this happen under Slater and co?
As far as Roland is concerned, he has failed the professional and businesslike test because he has repeatedly interfered in team selection and his two leading executives, Luzon and Meire, appear to be out of their depth. It was clear to me from what went on with Powell that he was unlikely to run the club in a sensible way in future. Sooner or later that was always likely to become manifest on the pitch, as indeed it has, but the results are the symptom of the problem not the problem itself, which in my view is the owner.
The possibility that the owner will revise his behaviour in the light of experience reduces over time, but unless he is very stupid or mad it must remain a possibility, so I think the objective remains to get the club run in a professional and businesslike way, which it is not at present, rather than simply replace the owner, even if in the end it probably amounts to the same thing. Ask yourself why so many staff continue to leave with no replacement job. It's not because they are happy in their work.
We all want the team to stay up above anything because the return of League One football would be a disaster from which the club might not recover and if we see the necessary improvement in results then the current clamour will die down, but the problem will remain that RD has not shown that he has a viable business strategy, employs inadequate executives and makes arbitrary and ill-informed decisions that consequently often have poor outcomes. They cost him money and damage the club.
In all likelihood unless he changes direction or sells, we will be back here in 12 months' time having the same discussion even if we do stay up - and no doubt the same people will still be telling us that everything is fine and any discontent is all stirred up by a handful of people who are followed by the rest as if they have no minds of their own. It's hugely insulting to the many committed supporters who are extremely anxious about the future of the club and for perfectly valid reasons.
In the earlier part of the year most fans paid no attention whatsoever to the views from Standard. Indeed, i'm not sure that many do now. In fact the majority view here was that RD's scheme is all about Standard as the mother ship. It was only a sustained effort by the Trust, presenting the views of the Standard Socios and respected journalists, plus a few Belgian Lifers who are mainly not Standard fans, who helped people understand that Standard is not progressing either and that the fans are mutinous. When you have 5,000 literally taking to the streets I don't think that can be called a "select group.". In fact the Socios are not in favour of the more violent demonstrations, nor the barging into RD's office, while the journalist Douglas de Coninck (who is BTW interviewing RD this Monday) helps us put the more Utopian views of the Socios into a more practical context.
Those organising the meeting have minds of their own, and they don't presume to speak for all shades of opinion. A key objective of the meeting is to clarify the strength of shades of opinion across the fan base. But if you suggest it is wrong to speak to and learn from people who have the longest and deepest experience of RD, then I in turn suggest that is a very ignorant way to approach a difficult and complex issue.
I feel like I am in the minority as I do not believe the answer is to get rid of the 'Belgians'. What we need is constructive dialogue as to the way forward and clear communication channels. It may well be that RD will not go for this, but we need to try as a first step.
I made no secret at the outset that I believe there is an opportunity for the 'network' to succeed. It is a very similar philosophy to that of the company for which I worked for 3 decades before going out on my own. Leverage your global resources for the benefit of the company and staff. Move people around so that both they and the company benefit. Develop and utilise internal young staff rather than always looking on the market. Bring in outside experienced resources as and when it will be beneficial. I learnt much more by having the opportunity to move around the company and work in dozens of countries around the world, as did many of my colleagues. Is football any different to business? It is certainly more 'emotional' but you still need the basic building blocks to produce a success.
Unfortunately the abuse of FFP may have blown this out of the window., but we need to know what is now planned by RD. Working together will have far more chance of success.
Wednesday is am important meeting and I look forward to attending.
So there are a bunch of supporters that don't share your view of the perfect lovely world of 'Roland', so of course 'All' of them must have an imaginary problem. OMG. Surely you should put one of your captions up telling them 'BYE' as you do with others that won't tow the network line, stating there not renewing their ST.
However well intentioned the organisers are, I still think it will get hi-jacked and descend into a Beglian bashing session.
Someone asked earlier whether I was relenting and was going to attend. Affraid not. I work in the building opposite but will be getting on my bike and riding home at 5.30.
Already on record as saying good luck and hope it succeeds but don't think it will.
AB has highlighted that the problems are also behind the scenes at The Valley.
My feeling is that in addition to the reduction in staffing levels, appointment of replacements for those making the decision to leave is nowhere near as rigorous a process as it was in seasons past. This is in no way a reflection on new members of staff however. The time & number of personnel involved in the training of said arrivals may be the problem but there are worrying signs that the infrastructure within certain departments is far from stable.
As an example, a fellow Lifer experienced considerable problems at the end of last week regarding her subscription to Valley Review. She suffered being passed from one member of staff to another, told by one employee that she didn't even know there was such a thing as a subscription, told that the person she had dealt with before Christmas had now left and finally promises to call her back were not honoured. This is a long term supporter who does understand why such problems arise ( although not condoning them) but what kind of service are newer fans receiving and what will their perception of our Club be as a result ?
I'm also aware that some emails sent to staff are not answered, let alone acknowledged which , KM apart maybe, is surely not best business practice ? It merely serves to frustrate & anger supporters who require an answer to their request or problem and emphasises the poor level of communication between Club and its paying customers.
Once again, I'd emphasise that this is NOT a criticism of staff in general at The Valley but on staffing levels & possible lack of training as a result. AB also mentioned that executive directors have left their posts & my perception is a harassed, relatively inexperienced CEO ( if that is Katrien's title) trying hard to keep her head above water with insufficient support. We are also told that she deals with the legal aspects of signing/loaning players.....A case of too few chiefs and not enough Indians ( no offence meant) ?
We want to be proud of our Club, both on the pitch & for the service it provides for its fans. At the moment, thanks mainly to the players themselves and said fans, the former shows signs of improvement. But the latter deserves closer attention sooner rather than later ....we need to hold onto those fans we already have & not alienate them.
Having started going regularly in the early 90s, having a thin squad that struggled to score goals and regularly sold its best players is hardly new to me. Yes the transfer policy is a mess, but to be fair to the owners, the attacking front 4 (Watt, Igor, JBG and Bulot) were all network players or RD era signings, and back in September when the team was beating Derby and playing good football, everyone was (on balance) fairly happy. If we had beaten Millwall, Cardiff and Blackpool at home (which we should have) and were comfortably in upper mid table, would this meeting have even been planned?
My mates had come to see Michael Turner and he was dropped from their 18 so came and watched the game with us.
First thing he said when he came up was "what's going on down here , I've just spoken to a few of your boys in the tunnel and they're not happy with what's going on here"
The players aren't happy with the set up and nor do I believe the fans should be
If anyone can tell me they have the same feeling for the Charlton team as they did just a couple of years back then they are clearly not regular attendees of our matches or they're robots without much heart !
In all seriousness it just doesn't feel right
But as said above all sides of the story should be heard
Unfortunately can't make the meeting but hope it will run smoothly
Ps i before e except after c. ;-) A Grammer rule that had so many exceptions, it has now been scrapped.
The club has had three months to sort this out and it is still a shambles. I know what the commission arrangements were under the previous sales regime and there is no way the club is better off financially, still less in terms of service to supporters and perception of its professionalism. As minuted, it was discussed at the FF, but it's actually got worse since then. It was better yesterday, but the same situation at ten to three. It's just a trivial example, but why has no one got a grip of this?
You may find that someone wishes to support the network principle, and RD. That is there opportunity and right to do so.
Some of the volunteers were doing this for the first time yesterday, some are even from this very site, and are like me and yourself a supporter.
I want to listen to what supporters have to say, the trust are just providing the platform, and the opportunity to do this.
I certainly do not have all the answers, but I do have some questions. You yourself have quite a few by your recent postings, a pity you cannot come along and share them with your fellow supporters.
Many people i spoke with yesterday are not happy with the results or what is going on behind the scenes, people are concerned about how the club has decided to ignore Supporters and adopt it's own non communicative approach.
It's unnecessary, damaging and the club should at the very least be prepared to respond to the concerns of the supporters.
If the guy who ran your company just made seemingly random decisions as part of a plan that none of you understood, with seemingly counter productive results then your perception would be quite different.
I've said before that whilst I would probably prefer that Charlton weren't part of one, I think a network model could succeed but I think what is fueling all of the consternation amongst the supporter base is that because this model is fairly new and unique we don't know what the goals are, we don't know what success looks like and therefore none of us can buy into it. I'm not saying the fans have any right to demand that RD reveals the intimate workings of his financial accounts, but simply explaining what his vision is and what he hopes to achieve both with Charlton and more broadly with his "network" isn't asking too much.