Confession time .. If I were the owner of a professional football club, I would DEFINITELY have a say in team selection and player purchases .. not to say that I would DEMAND to have the final say, but I would have my opinions heard and I would not be using any computer gimmickry .. and I dare say 90% of CLers would say the same .. IF they were being honest
Indeed, but would you be a success in that role or would you undermine the club so badly that you'd have to sell for what you could get? :-)
I would not know that I were 'undermining the club' until I had tried would I ?. And IF I thought that I were undermining 'the cause' I would change my policy. You have very strong opinions about how CAFC should be run and I dare say on selection matters. But you of course, like myself are not in a position to test your theories. Are you saying that IF you owned CAFC you would have NO say at all in matters relating to the playing staff ? If I would be a hypothetical success is not the issue here, it is my hypothetical club and I would have a say in how it was run, just as I would have a say in any business I owned which was planning to hire or promote an integral member of staff. You and many others seem to think that football clubs are unique amongst business investments .. they are not .. like any business which has been purchased for a large sum, the owner/investor would be expected to take an interest in personnel amongst other important matters. Any owner would be rather foolish if he did not do so
Perhaps someone (not me) could email the 91 other CEOs and report back on the response rates;
No reply. Acknowledgement / Generic response / Fob off Full (detailed) response as to what the 3 / 5 / 10 year plan is for that club
Well at Swansea it will be the third response because one of the directors represents the 20% share held directly by the fans. He was even prepared to discuss their plans with me! They were hardly revolutionary, but eminently sensible, BTW. And they seem to be working.
Ok, good start - so out of 92, the results so far are as follows
No reply.
(91)
Acknowledgement / Generic response / Fob off
(0)
Full (detailed) response as to what the 3 / 5 / 10 year plan is for that club
(1) - Swansea
If I wanted to be equally inane in my response to you, I would say I'm getting a 100% response for option three.
But that would be absurd.
I'm pretty confident though that a fan of Portsmouth or AFC Wimbledon, to name but two, would also get response three. Rather than argue with me, since you won't believe anything I would answer, why don't you put your point to Supporters' Direct, and particularly Kevin Rye, their Head of Policy and PR, who happens to be an AFCW fan too. Since he spent an hour of his valuable family time last night advising the Trust, tyou'll find he's well aware of the situation at Charlton and the shades of opinion within the fan base. Give it a try, if you are serious.
Very defensive response there to a lighthearted update on a serious point I raised. I would be amazed if KM is in the minority when it comes to CEOs (not) responding to fans.
so out of 92, the results so far are as follows
No reply.
(89)
Acknowledgement / Generic response / Fob off
(0)
Full (detailed) response as to what the 3 / 5 / 10 year plan is for that club
(3) - Swansea - AFC Wimbledon (probably) - Portsmouth (probably)
Don't understand why you are comparing us to other clubs. Why do we care what other CEO's do? We care about what our CEO does, and she will only please fans more if she did respond to more emails. The CEO where I work, not getting into where, but a name in sport that is known further afield than just England, responds to every single email he gets. Doesn't mean he has to, or other CEO's do, but it helps make him very successful and well liked.
Absolutely. The valid comparison is with our own club, who in general over the last 20 or so years have not only been happy to share their plans but for much of that time gave a seat on the board to a supporters' representative. Oddly enough, it coincided with a sustained period of success. Who'd have thought that would be the result of productive engagement with your customers...
Confession time .. If I were the owner of a professional football club, I would DEFINITELY have a say in team selection and player purchases .. not to say that I would DEMAND to have the final say, but I would have my opinions heard and I would not be using any computer gimmickry .. and I dare say 90% of CLers would say the same .. IF they were being honest
Indeed, but would you be a success in that role or would you undermine the club so badly that you'd have to sell for what you could get? :-)
I would not know that I were 'undermining the club' until I had tried would I ?. And IF I thought that I were undermining 'the cause' I would change my policy. You have very strong opinions about how CAFC should be run and I dare say on selection matters. But you of course, like myself are not in a position to test your theories. Are you saying that IF you owned CAFC you would have NO say at all in matters relating to the playing staff ? If I would be a hypothetical success is not the issue here, it is my hypothetical club and I would have a say in how it was run, just as I would have a say in any business I owned which was planning to hire or promote an integral member of staff. You and many others seem to think that football clubs are unique amongst business investments .. they are not .. like any business which has been purchased for a large sum, the owner/investor would be expected to take an interest in personnel amongst other important matters. Any owner would be rather foolish if he did not do so
I'd imagine you'd be self-aware enough in practice to realise that you didn't have the expertise to run the team yourself. I certainly would. And if I have opinions about team selection I recognise that they are no more valid - indeed probably less valid - than 99 per cent of people who have never played the game professionally. I'm a football fan. I'm not a football expert and have never pretended otherwise.
Having a say is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, just as I have a say in the running of my local council because I am an elected member of its cabinet. It doesn't mean that I am competent to make day to day operational decisions. It means I am involved in setting its strategy and monitoring whether it is being delivered. I am responsible for ensuring that it balances its budget, but I do not decide who manages individual services or how their budgets are dispensed in detail. The council employs professionals with relevant experience and qualifications to do that.
You, I think, confusing ownership with executive control. That is not the same thing in most businesses, and that's because the owners (typically shareholders) recognise that competent decision-making is most likely to be delivered by people with expertise and experience, not by arbitrary interventions from the end of a phone in another country.
Indeed, we have the model of how it should be done because - supporter input notwithstanding - that's exactly how the club operated successfully in the past.
Owners should exercise a veto over player purchases, IMHO, only when such purchases are outside agreed financial limits, would unbalance the squad either through too big a gap between wage levels or for example if a manager wanted to buy 15 keepers and only two centre halves or if a purchase would bring the club into disrepute ie Ched Evans.
Otherwise as Airman says they should allow the managers they employ to pick the players to sign and to play and then judge them on how well they perform in the circumstances.
Confession time .. If I were the owner of a professional football club, I would DEFINITELY have a say in team selection and player purchases .. not to say that I would DEMAND to have the final say, but I would have my opinions heard and I would not be using any computer gimmickry .. and I dare say 90% of CLers would say the same .. IF they were being honest
Indeed, but would you be a success in that role or would you undermine the club so badly that you'd have to sell for what you could get? :-)
I would not know that I were 'undermining the club' until I had tried would I ?. And IF I thought that I were undermining 'the cause' I would change my policy. You have very strong opinions about how CAFC should be run and I dare say on selection matters. But you of course, like myself are not in a position to test your theories. Are you saying that IF you owned CAFC you would have NO say at all in matters relating to the playing staff ? If I would be a hypothetical success is not the issue here, it is my hypothetical club and I would have a say in how it was run, just as I would have a say in any business I owned which was planning to hire or promote an integral member of staff. You and many others seem to think that football clubs are unique amongst business investments .. they are not .. like any business which has been purchased for a large sum, the owner/investor would be expected to take an interest in personnel amongst other important matters. Any owner would be rather foolish if he did not do so
I'd imagine you'd be self-aware enough in practice to realise that you didn't have the expertise to run the team yourself. I certainly would. And if I have opinions about team selection I recognise that they are no more valid - indeed probably less valid - than 99 per cent of people who have never played the game professionally. I'm a football fan. I'm not a football expert and have never pretended otherwise.
Having a say is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, just as I have a say in the running of my local council because I am an elected member of its cabinet. It doesn't mean that I am competent to make day to day operational decisions. It means I am involved in setting its strategy and monitoring whether it is being delivered. I am responsible for ensuring that it balances its budget, but I do not decide who manages individual services or how their budgets are dispensed in detail. The council employs professionals with relevant experience and qualifications to do that.
You, I think, confusing ownership with executive control. That is not the same thing in most businesses, and that's because the owners (typically shareholders) recognise that competent decision-making is made by people with expertise, not arbitrary interventions from the end of a phone in an another country.
Great response ((:>) .. as I typed in the first post, I would not demand the final say, but I, like yourself, have watched enough games and players over the years to know a bit about what we expect, especially when it is MY MONEY at stake. IF my hypothetical manager continued to pick sides that lost games AND had the impertinence to consistently ignore my expert advice (lol) then he would be replaced (a polite term for sacked). (I sound so cruel and heartless) I do think that nowadays, team selection is done by 'committee' as much as by a single 'manager/coach/ figure. Interestingly, Ramsey, the stand in QPR coach/manager used the term 'line manager' when discussing his role. Les Ferdinand is Ramsey's 'boss' and Ramsey rarely if ever has contact with Fernandes, the club owner, Ferdinand is the go between. Admittedly, Fernandes has many other big fish to fry.
All due respect, I'm bored of all the anti RD stuff at the moment. I'm also bored of the 100% Support for RD from some... he hasn't earned the total trust or lack of it yet.
I don't particularly care who runs this club, provided that they have the clubs best interests at heart.
I think RD does, otherwise why replace a manager, spend on transfers, spend on loans and free agents, pitch resurfacing, under soil heating, new training grounds (potentially)...
Apparently he doesn't care what we think or what we say about it or about anything other than selling all our assets to make money?
Confession time .. If I were the owner of a professional football club, I would DEFINITELY have a say in team selection and player purchases .. not to say that I would DEMAND to have the final say, but I would have my opinions heard and I would not be using any computer gimmickry .. and I dare say 90% of CLers would say the same .. IF they were being honest
Indeed, but would you be a success in that role or would you undermine the club so badly that you'd have to sell for what you could get? :-)
I would not know that I were 'undermining the club' until I had tried would I ?. And IF I thought that I were undermining 'the cause' I would change my policy. You have very strong opinions about how CAFC should be run and I dare say on selection matters. But you of course, like myself are not in a position to test your theories. Are you saying that IF you owned CAFC you would have NO say at all in matters relating to the playing staff ? If I would be a hypothetical success is not the issue here, it is my hypothetical club and I would have a say in how it was run, just as I would have a say in any business I owned which was planning to hire or promote an integral member of staff. You and many others seem to think that football clubs are unique amongst business investments .. they are not .. like any business which has been purchased for a large sum, the owner/investor would be expected to take an interest in personnel amongst other important matters. Any owner would be rather foolish if he did not do so
I'd imagine you'd be self-aware enough in practice to realise that you didn't have the expertise to run the team yourself. I certainly would. And if I have opinions about team selection I recognise that they are no more valid - indeed probably less valid - than 99 per cent of people who have never played the game professionally. I'm a football fan. I'm not a football expert and have never pretended otherwise.
Having a say is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, just as I have a say in the running of my local council because I am an elected member of its cabinet. It doesn't mean that I am competent to make day to day operational decisions. It means I am involved in setting its strategy and monitoring whether it is being delivered. I am responsible for ensuring that it balances its budget, but I do not decide who manages individual services or how their budgets are dispensed in detail. The council employs professionals with relevant experience and qualifications to do that.
You, I think, confusing ownership with executive control. That is not the same thing in most businesses, and that's because the owners (typically shareholders) recognise that competent decision-making is made by people with expertise, not arbitrary interventions from the end of a phone in an another country.
Great response ((:>) .. as I typed in the first post, I would not demand the final say, but I, like yourself, have watched enough games and players over the years to know a bit about what we expect, especially when it is MY MONEY at stake. IF my hypothetical manager continued to pick sides that lost games AND had the impertinence to consistently ignore my expert advice (lol) then he would be replaced (a polite term for sacked). (I sound so cruel and heartless) I do think that nowadays, team selection is done by 'committee' as much as by a single 'manager/coach/ figure. Interestingly, Ramsey, the stand in QPR coach/manager used the term 'line manager' when discussing his role. Les Ferdinand is Ramsey's 'boss' and Ramsey rarely if ever has contact with Fernandes, the club owner, Ferdinand is the go between. Admittedly, Fernandes has many other big fish to fry.
I think Roland has a problem in that he can't be fully transparent about what sits above the head coach at Charlton, i.e. him, because it would not be accepted by supporters if they were clear about the scope of it. It would be different if he had someone above Luzon who had both a defined role overseeing the head coach and a track record in professional football. Or indeed if you had a conventional manager in charge of the team. The difficulty is that when things go wrong Roland either has to sack the coach or sack himself, so naturally it's the coach that gets the bullet regardless of the problem.
Confession time .. If I were the owner of a professional football club, I would DEFINITELY have a say in team selection and player purchases .. not to say that I would DEMAND to have the final say, but I would have my opinions heard and I would not be using any computer gimmickry .. and I dare say 90% of CLers would say the same .. IF they were being honest
Indeed, but would you be a success in that role or would you undermine the club so badly that you'd have to sell for what you could get? :-)
I would not know that I were 'undermining the club' until I had tried would I ?. And IF I thought that I were undermining 'the cause' I would change my policy. You have very strong opinions about how CAFC should be run and I dare say on selection matters. But you of course, like myself are not in a position to test your theories. Are you saying that IF you owned CAFC you would have NO say at all in matters relating to the playing staff ? If I would be a hypothetical success is not the issue here, it is my hypothetical club and I would have a say in how it was run, just as I would have a say in any business I owned which was planning to hire or promote an integral member of staff. You and many others seem to think that football clubs are unique amongst business investments .. they are not .. like any business which has been purchased for a large sum, the owner/investor would be expected to take an interest in personnel amongst other important matters. Any owner would be rather foolish if he did not do so
I'd imagine you'd be self-aware enough in practice to realise that you didn't have the expertise to run the team yourself. I certainly would. And if I have opinions about team selection I recognise that they are no more valid - indeed probably less valid - than 99 per cent of people who have never played the game professionally. I'm a football fan. I'm not a football expert and have never pretended otherwise.
Having a say is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, just as I have a say in the running of my local council because I am an elected member of its cabinet. It doesn't mean that I am competent to make day to day operational decisions. It means I am involved in setting its strategy and monitoring whether it is being delivered. I am responsible for ensuring that it balances its budget, but I do not decide who manages individual services or how their budgets are dispensed in detail. The council employs professionals with relevant experience and qualifications to do that.
You, I think, confusing ownership with executive control. That is not the same thing in most businesses, and that's because the owners (typically shareholders) recognise that competent decision-making is made by people with expertise, not arbitrary interventions from the end of a phone in an another country.
Great response ((:>) .. as I typed in the first post, I would not demand the final say, but I, like yourself, have watched enough games and players over the years to know a bit about what we expect, especially when it is MY MONEY at stake. IF my hypothetical manager continued to pick sides that lost games AND had the impertinence to consistently ignore my expert advice (lol) then he would be replaced (a polite term for sacked). (I sound so cruel and heartless) I do think that nowadays, team selection is done by 'committee' as much as by a single 'manager/coach/ figure. Interestingly, Ramsey, the stand in QPR coach/manager used the term 'line manager' when discussing his role. Les Ferdinand is Ramsey's 'boss' and Ramsey rarely if ever has contact with Fernandes, the club owner, Ferdinand is the go between. Admittedly, Fernandes has many other big fish to fry.
I think Roland has a problem in that he can't be fully transparent about what sits above the head coach at Charlton, i.e. him, because it would not be accepted by supporters if they were clear about the scope of it. It would be different if he had someone above Luzon who had both a defined role overseeing the head coach and a track record in professional football. Or indeed if you had a conventional manager in charge of the team. The difficulty is that when things go wrong Roland either has to sack the coach or sack himself, so naturally it's the coach that gets the bullet regardless of the problem.
very perceptive and I would say accurate .. so despite my other (hypothetical) theory, football clubs are NEVER the same as any other business .. too many have too much 'emotion' at stake .. when buying a professional FC .. caveat emptor !!
Confession time .. If I were the owner of a professional football club, I would DEFINITELY have a say in team selection and player purchases .. not to say that I would DEMAND to have the final say, but I would have my opinions heard and I would not be using any computer gimmickry .. and I dare say 90% of CLers would say the same .. IF they were being honest
Indeed, but would you be a success in that role or would you undermine the club so badly that you'd have to sell for what you could get? :-)
Confession time .. If I were the owner of a professional football club, I would DEFINITELY have a say in team selection and player purchases .. not to say that I would DEMAND to have the final say, but I would have my opinions heard and I would not be using any computer gimmickry .. and I dare say 90% of CLers would say the same .. IF they were being honest
Indeed, but would you be a success in that role or would you undermine the club so badly that you'd have to sell for what you could get? :-)
I would not know that I were 'undermining the club' until I had tried would I ?. And IF I thought that I were undermining 'the cause' I would change my policy. You have very strong opinions about how CAFC should be run and I dare say on selection matters. But you of course, like myself are not in a position to test your theories. Are you saying that IF you owned CAFC you would have NO say at all in matters relating to the playing staff ? If I would be a hypothetical success is not the issue here, it is my hypothetical club and I would have a say in how it was run, just as I would have a say in any business I owned which was planning to hire or promote an integral member of staff. You and many others seem to think that football clubs are unique amongst business investments .. they are not .. like any business which has been purchased for a large sum, the owner/investor would be expected to take an interest in personnel amongst other important matters. Any owner would be rather foolish if he did not do so
Having a say is perfectly reasonable and to be expected...
So conversely, you could say Powell, Riga and Vignjević have put RD in his place by not playing Nego at Centre Half.
And have been removed.
Both Riga and Vignjević are currently employed as head coaches by Roland Duchâtalet.
But do carry on with the 'Duchâtelet the Dictator' theme.
To be honest, I'd no idea who Vignjević is, so fair enough . . . however, are you denying that Riga left Charlton against his wishes?
Riga left because his contract was up. That's it. He might have wanted another but at no point had he been promised one, there was no obligation on either party for him to get any more time. He wasn't fired, put on gardening leave, or in fact removed from his position at all - he'd served the contract as originally signed by himself.
So conversely, you could say Powell, Riga and Vignjević have put RD in his place by not playing Nego at Centre Half.
And have been removed.
Both Riga and Vignjević are currently employed as head coaches by Roland Duchâtalet.
But do carry on with the 'Duchâtelet the Dictator' theme.
To be honest, I'd no idea who Vignjević is, so fair enough . . . however, are you denying that Riga left Charlton against his wishes?
The attempt to turn criticism into some kind of xenophobic attack on Belgians is risible, by the way.
Riga left Charlton at the end of his short term contract. He wasn't sacked. He may have wanted to stay and I think most of us would have supported that - however, the owner and man who makes the decisions, went elsewhere.
If the owner felt he wasn't a 'Yes Man', then why has he subsequently employed him at the top of his pyramid?
I'd never suggest that you personally would attack the nationality of our owner - but others have.
I just like to balance out some of the ridiculous criticism the owner has been getting. Some of it, is quite rightly justified, but a lot of it is totally unreasonable. His actions are no different from 90% of football club owners.
So conversely, you could say Powell, Riga and Vignjević have put RD in his place by not playing Nego at Centre Half.
And have been removed.
Both Riga and Vignjević are currently employed as head coaches by Roland Duchâtalet.
But do carry on with the 'Duchâtelet the Dictator' theme.
To be honest, I'd no idea who Vignjević is, so fair enough . . . however, are you denying that Riga left Charlton against his wishes?
The attempt to turn criticism into some kind of xenophobic attack on Belgians is risible, by the way.
Riga left Charlton at the end of his short term contract. He wasn't sacked. He may have wanted to stay and I think most of us would have supported that - however, the owner and man who makes the decisions, went elsewhere.
If the owner felt he wasn't a 'Yes Man', then why has he subsequently employed him at the top of his pyramid?
I'd never suggest that you personally would attack the nationality of our owner - but others have.
I just like to balance out some of the ridiculous criticism the owner has been getting. Some of it, is quite rightly justified, but a lot of it is totally unreasonable. His actions are no different from 90% of football club owners.
That's where we'll have to agree to disagree then.
I accept that Riga's return at SL is hard to explain, but given RD's track record I expect he'll be leaving again before long.
So conversely, you could say Powell, Riga and Vignjević have put RD in his place by not playing Nego at Centre Half.
And have been removed.
Both Riga and Vignjević are currently employed as head coaches by Roland Duchâtalet.
But do carry on with the 'Duchâtelet the Dictator' theme.
And Luzon appears to be able to decide on his own team well enough that most of the reactions to the team selection against Brentford were that 'at last we played the right players in the right spots and so we won'.
The facts (following the initial period where I do think RD overestimated the ability of the players loaned to CAFC and the relationship with SCP clearly did not work) just do not support the argument that he is imposing players onto the team. I mean, could anyone say that we currently have bundles of superior players in the wings, unable to get on the pitch because they are being unfairly kept out by RD's favourites?
I suspect that RD does have a view - but then so will most Chairman of clubs - and he is probably not shy in expressing that view, but I do believe that if a strong manager, who he respects, stands up to him, then he will back down.
I actually know quite a few very successful business owners who would feel they have a duty to give their opinion, but would bow to greater sector knowledge and will consider that this kind of relationship-of-challenge is a positive way to work. It would not suit everyone, but I have definitely seen it work well as long as the owner will back down, when stood up to, which it seems to me that RD will do.
So conversely, you could say Powell, Riga and Vignjević have put RD in his place by not playing Nego at Centre Half.
And have been removed.
Both Riga and Vignjević are currently employed as head coaches by Roland Duchâtalet.
But do carry on with the 'Duchâtelet the Dictator' theme.
To be honest, I'd no idea who Vignjević is, so fair enough . . . however, are you denying that Riga left Charlton against his wishes?
The attempt to turn criticism into some kind of xenophobic attack on Belgians is risible, by the way.
Riga left Charlton at the end of his short term contract. He wasn't sacked. He may have wanted to stay and I think most of us would have supported that - however, the owner and man who makes the decisions, went elsewhere.
If the owner felt he wasn't a 'Yes Man', then why has he subsequently employed him at the top of his pyramid?
I'd never suggest that you personally would attack the nationality of our owner - but others have.
I just like to balance out some of the ridiculous criticism the owner has been getting. Some of it, is quite rightly justified, but a lot of it is totally unreasonable. His actions are no different from 90% of football club owners.
That's an odd closing point. While I very much wouldn't count Roland as acting like 90% of football club owners (do 90% of other owners have a network of clubs?), his actions aren't justified just because other owners do it too. Would I like Massimo Cellino here? No. Milan Mandaric? No. Vincent Tan? No thanks. Carson Yeung? Venkys? Bolton's Burnden? Oyston? No, these people and groups are nuts, sacking managers left and right, loading debt onto the club, letting the pitches fall into disrepair, hardly any of them fit and proper persons (except you Mr Oyston, you're lovely. Don't sue me thanks, I'm poor). The nature of being a football owner seems to fall exclusively into the 'has money, is crazy' category. Saying it's not fair to criticise Roland because he's doing what the other owners is doing is not an argument for leaving Roland alone. If anything it's an argument for criticising him more. If he's emulating 90% of other football club owners then he's not in great company.
In response to SteveK. Alex Dyer clearly states that RD was interfering in team selection and that was why Powell was sacked. Please read Dyer's interview with the SLP below.
I believe Peeters said similar when he was sacked, but I can't find the article.
Rednic when sacked at SL, said the owner wanted a puppet not a coach.
Is RD still interfering with team selection ? I don't know, but then it is said he never has been.
The point is, if he is inteferring, it will always be a problem, unless he really is better than his coaches and can get us to The Prem on his team preferences. It will only dampen down, when results go well.
Personally, if he thinks a coach is better than a Manager so be it.
However, he needs to let the coach, select the players at his disposal, as he sees fit, it is otherwise farcial.
This still comes back to the allegation that he insisted Thuram play, when 90% of the fans and all the coaching staff were against this. How can a coach be in charge and keep his self esteem if he can't have 100% say in who is being selected.
IE A player has done really well in training and the whole squad and coaches agree he should play Saturday.
The coach tells him he's playing on the Thursday & then on the Saturday has to tell him that the owner say he can't play, because he wants to play the other chap, who has been performing abysmally, so the owner may be able to offload him, by putting him in the shop window.
I'm sure there will still be posters on here saying they are fine with this 7 it's the owner's perogative, but there's not much I can do about that.
NB If the owner thinks it is such a great idea, then why does he deny it ?
Either all the coaches are lying or the owner is.
Why would Dyer lie, he's left the club ? He has no motive as they say.
I suppose the key question is what meant by 'interference' - fundamentally, I can quite imagine that he would say 'why aren't you playing XXX, he is really good and you should be playing' but then, if the manager stands firm, does he respect his greater specific knowledge and back down?
This style of management can be quite adversarial - people feel that they are being challenged all the time - so I can see why some people absolutely would not like it (and probably why RD has to go through a number of managers before he finds one that will cope, but then will continue to give jobs to those who can thrive in that environment). Those managers who do not like it, absolutely would feel that he wanted to pick the team, when the reality was quite different.
But I have also seen it work very well in different businesses, because it does constantly challenge senior management to improve and challenge their own way of thinking.
Of course this is only guesswork on my part, but it seems to fit the facts better than the 'he picks the team' theory because:
1, The reality on the pitch - as I say, we just do not have bundles of really good players who are being kept out by 'RD's favourites'.
2, His success in business - I just cannot see that it is credible to believe that someone could develop a business of the size he has, while thinking that he can micro-manage the work of all his senior management, when he flagrantly cannot.
He doesn't pick the team, as in, he emails the coach, with the starting 11.
However, it is said that he strongly suggests/tells the coach to play certain players such as Thuram & Nego when they did not appear to be good enough.
It is also alleged after the games. Rather than discusss with the coach about how the game went & why we won/lost etc. He is much more concerned with how certain players performed and why they did/didn't play.
IE his primary concern is that certain players are showcased in "our shop window", in order that they can be sold for profit, rather, than caring as to how his professional football clubs are performing.
In other words, as long as he can continue his merry go round of players and coaches at a profit, he doesn't care how Charlton are doing.
I suppose the key question is what meant by 'interference' - fundamentally, I can quite imagine that he would say 'why aren't you playing XXX, he is really good and you should be playing' but then, if the manager stands firm, does he respect his greater specific knowledge and back down?
This style of management can be quite adversarial - people feel that they are being challenged all the time - so I can see why some people absolutely would not like it (and probably why RD has to go through a number of managers before he finds one that will cope, but then will continue to give jobs to those who can thrive in that environment). Those managers who do not like it, absolutely would feel that he wanted to pick the team, when the reality was quite different.
But I have also seen it work very well in different businesses, because it does constantly challenge senior management to improve and challenge their own way of thinking.
Of course this is only guesswork on my part, but it seems to fit the facts better than the 'he picks the team' theory because:
1, The reality on the pitch - as I say, we just do not have bundles of really good players who are being kept out by 'RD's favourites'.
2, His success in business - I just cannot see that it is credible to believe that someone could develop a business of the size he has, while thinking that he can micro-manage the work of all his senior management, when he flagrantly cannot.
Yes it seems more plausible and I understand why people choose to believe it, but that doesn't make it the case. And by and large the closer you get to the club the less it is believed because people have heard more about what really went on with Chris Powell.
That may well be the case @Airman Brown - there are many people far more 'in the know' than me around here, yourself certainly included. Although, on the specific point, I would argue that it is hard to judge RD from how he behaved with SCP, just because the circumstances were rather different (panic to stay up, facilities in crisis, inheritance from the old regime etc).
Comments
I think you mean David Whyte!
You have very strong opinions about how CAFC should be run and I dare say on selection matters. But you of course, like myself are not in a position to test your theories. Are you saying that IF you owned CAFC you would have NO say at all in matters relating to the playing staff ?
If I would be a hypothetical success is not the issue here, it is my hypothetical club and I would have a say in how it was run, just as I would have a say in any business I owned which was planning to hire or promote an integral member of staff.
You and many others seem to think that football clubs are unique amongst business investments .. they are not .. like any business which has been purchased for a large sum, the owner/investor would be expected to take an interest in personnel amongst other important matters. Any owner would be rather foolish if he did not do so
Having a say is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, just as I have a say in the running of my local council because I am an elected member of its cabinet. It doesn't mean that I am competent to make day to day operational decisions. It means I am involved in setting its strategy and monitoring whether it is being delivered. I am responsible for ensuring that it balances its budget, but I do not decide who manages individual services or how their budgets are dispensed in detail. The council employs professionals with relevant experience and qualifications to do that.
You, I think, confusing ownership with executive control. That is not the same thing in most businesses, and that's because the owners (typically shareholders) recognise that competent decision-making is most likely to be delivered by people with expertise and experience, not by arbitrary interventions from the end of a phone in another country.
Indeed, we have the model of how it should be done because - supporter input notwithstanding - that's exactly how the club operated successfully in the past.
Otherwise as Airman says they should allow the managers they employ to pick the players to sign and to play and then judge them on how well they perform in the circumstances.
IF my hypothetical manager continued to pick sides that lost games AND had the impertinence to consistently ignore my expert advice (lol) then he would be replaced (a polite term for sacked). (I sound so cruel and heartless)
I do think that nowadays, team selection is done by 'committee' as much as by a single 'manager/coach/ figure.
Interestingly, Ramsey, the stand in QPR coach/manager used the term 'line manager' when discussing his role. Les Ferdinand is Ramsey's 'boss' and Ramsey rarely if ever has contact with Fernandes, the club owner, Ferdinand is the go between. Admittedly, Fernandes has many other big fish to fry.
I don't particularly care who runs this club, provided that they have the clubs best interests at heart.
I think RD does, otherwise why replace a manager, spend on transfers, spend on loans and free agents, pitch resurfacing, under soil heating, new training grounds (potentially)...
Apparently he doesn't care what we think or what we say about it or about anything other than selling all our assets to make money?
I can't believe he is as foolish as that.
But do carry on with the 'Duchâtelet the Dictator' theme.
Unless, it would appear, that you are a Belgian.
The attempt to turn criticism into some kind of xenophobic attack on Belgians is risible, by the way.
If the owner felt he wasn't a 'Yes Man', then why has he subsequently employed him at the top of his pyramid?
I'd never suggest that you personally would attack the nationality of our owner - but others have.
I just like to balance out some of the ridiculous criticism the owner has been getting. Some of it, is quite rightly justified, but a lot of it is totally unreasonable. His actions are no different from 90% of football club owners.
I accept that Riga's return at SL is hard to explain, but given RD's track record I expect he'll be leaving again before long.
Do keep up.
(I do hope that you get your questions answered to your satisfaction tomorrow) And Luzon appears to be able to decide on his own team well enough that most of the reactions to the team selection against Brentford were that 'at last we played the right players in the right spots and so we won'.
The facts (following the initial period where I do think RD overestimated the ability of the players loaned to CAFC and the relationship with SCP clearly did not work) just do not support the argument that he is imposing players onto the team. I mean, could anyone say that we currently have bundles of superior players in the wings, unable to get on the pitch because they are being unfairly kept out by RD's favourites?
I suspect that RD does have a view - but then so will most Chairman of clubs - and he is probably not shy in expressing that view, but I do believe that if a strong manager, who he respects, stands up to him, then he will back down.
I actually know quite a few very successful business owners who would feel they have a duty to give their opinion, but would bow to greater sector knowledge and will consider that this kind of relationship-of-challenge is a positive way to work. It would not suit everyone, but I have definitely seen it work well as long as the owner will back down, when stood up to, which it seems to me that RD will do.
I believe Peeters said similar when he was sacked, but I can't find the article.
Rednic when sacked at SL, said the owner wanted a puppet not a coach.
Is RD still interfering with team selection ? I don't know, but then it is said he never has been.
The point is, if he is inteferring, it will always be a problem, unless he really is better than his coaches and can get us to The Prem on his team preferences. It will only dampen down, when results go well.
https://us.v-cdn.net/5000498/uploads/FileUpload/d1/d05ca55d07d0cd619c09b49b62a6d1.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/5000498/uploads/FileUpload/7a/550699a36f14a30e6050005016a4a5.jpg
Personally, if he thinks a coach is better than a Manager so be it.
However, he needs to let the coach, select the players at his disposal, as he sees fit, it is otherwise farcial.
This still comes back to the allegation that he insisted Thuram play, when 90% of the fans and all the coaching staff were against this. How can a coach be in charge and keep his self esteem if he can't have 100% say in who is being selected.
IE A player has done really well in training and the whole squad and coaches agree he should play Saturday.
The coach tells him he's playing on the Thursday & then on the Saturday has to tell him that the owner say he can't play, because he wants to play the other chap, who has been performing abysmally, so the owner may be able to offload him, by putting him in the shop window.
I'm sure there will still be posters on here saying they are fine with this 7 it's the owner's perogative, but there's not much I can do about that.
NB If the owner thinks it is such a great idea, then why does he deny it ?
Either all the coaches are lying or the owner is.
Why would Dyer lie, he's left the club ? He has no motive as they say.
I suppose the key question is what meant by 'interference' - fundamentally, I can quite imagine that he would say 'why aren't you playing XXX, he is really good and you should be playing' but then, if the manager stands firm, does he respect his greater specific knowledge and back down?
This style of management can be quite adversarial - people feel that they are being challenged all the time - so I can see why some people absolutely would not like it (and probably why RD has to go through a number of managers before he finds one that will cope, but then will continue to give jobs to those who can thrive in that environment). Those managers who do not like it, absolutely would feel that he wanted to pick the team, when the reality was quite different.
But I have also seen it work very well in different businesses, because it does constantly challenge senior management to improve and challenge their own way of thinking.
Of course this is only guesswork on my part, but it seems to fit the facts better than the 'he picks the team' theory because:
1, The reality on the pitch - as I say, we just do not have bundles of really good players who are being kept out by 'RD's favourites'.
2, His success in business - I just cannot see that it is credible to believe that someone could develop a business of the size he has, while thinking that he can micro-manage the work of all his senior management, when he flagrantly cannot.
However, it is said that he strongly suggests/tells the coach to play certain players such as Thuram & Nego when they did not appear to be good enough.
It is also alleged after the games. Rather than discusss with the coach about how the game went & why we won/lost etc. He is much more concerned with how certain players performed and why they did/didn't play.
IE his primary concern is that certain players are showcased in "our shop window", in order that they can be sold for profit, rather, than caring as to how his professional football clubs are performing.
In other words, as long as he can continue his merry go round of players and coaches at a profit, he doesn't care how Charlton are doing.