Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Dear Katrien

245

Comments

  • How rare is that though Shrew mate? If you say for example we get around 1,000 comments a day, how many would you say cross that line like the stray one above. I know from what I see it is far far lower than what you see posted on Facebook or Twitter, so I do think an element of perspective needs to be added. Not making it right btw

  • I love the theory @ShootersHillGuru, I suppose that the difficulty comes in how do you achieve that in practice - what can she say, for example, when she does a couple of open meetings like Bromley and the VIPs but still people insist that she refuses to talk to the fans? Or that she is lying (when I am sure that she does not believe she is, whatever the rights or wrongs)? Or that it is not her that the fans want to talk to anyway, and dismiss her as 'out of her depth'?

    I think, if I were her, I would be tempted to keep a low profile, concentrate on doing my job of running the company, and let the players on the pitch and the manager off it be the front-men of the operation (just like, for example in the days under SCP that people hark back to), and hope that eventually people just started to consider me as 'part of the furniture'.
  • 3 excellent posts from SHG, Seth & MIA.

    If Katrien could be persuaded to read & inwardly digest these wise words , we'd be half way to a better understanding between the Club & its customers.

    Would it be acceptable for a selection of CL posts ( sensible ones) to be presented to her at Bromley next Thursday ? They would make excellent reading for her next train journey.
  • Harvey you are wrong as Covered End has pointed out, as I'm sure that there are a few of us with the experience that you say is not present.
    As far as KM is concerned her gender is immaterial and people shouldn't make sexual remarks however she is open to criticism as she has made mistakes, as we all do from time to time, and as have previous execs who have also been criticised.
  • Just posted this on another thread but probably fits better here.

    Davo55Davo55 Member
    11:53AM

    We should certainly continue to seek dialogue but it sounds as if KM's attitude towards the Trust (or maybe unhappy supporters in general) is quite dismissive. I really wish we could all (and I mean KM too) could draw a line under past events and have a constructive discussion about how we can all pull together. We are, after all, on the same side and with the same desire for success. I think there have been mistakes on both sides. I very much hope the Trust can call upon Richard Murray to broker a "truce", so that we can show KM that supporters are, ultimately, on her side.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited March 2015
    I think the problem is this. For many years the club has operated in a way that meant rational, informed arguments put forward by supporters about the running of the business were taken on board and adopted by the club and this of itself made supporters feel valued and respected. They could also see their interests were represented and shared within the staff and on the board, so there was a high level of trust.

    The current regime cannot easily work in that way because rationality is subordinate to Roland's writ, of which Katrien is the day to day manifestation. So the rationale of a particular case is no longer what takes precedence. That's why you can't really have an effective dialogue. Communication, such as it is, will be one way. Take It or leave it. Pay up and shut up.

    Layered on top of that is the effect of an inexperienced and threadbare administration, which is making too many mistakes, in part because it cannot take advantage of the goodwill and knowledge available to it. There is no real animosity in any direction and no reason for any, simply frustration at the lack of mutual understanding. We might as well be talking a different language.
  • Wij doen spreken een andere taal.
  • seth plum said:

    It must be a difficult task to have to second guess the owner on every day to day issue. I imagine Roland has encouraged Katrien to make decisions, and he is prepared to back her up, just as Katrien shows impressive loyalty towards Roland.
    Of course there are significant issues where Katrien does not have the autonomy to act, but she still has to give the impression of decisiveness as the public face of the club. Now it is well known that a situation where you have to present a unified front, even if your better judgement has misgivings, is stressful.
    In matters where Katrien has independence of decision making one has to ask what support and advice does she have to draw on, because some things have been in my view ill thought through.
    Katrien remains a personally charming individual, and as a graduate of University College London she is certainly no fool. It may be a poor bit of judgement however to assume that those personal qualities can see you successfully through all the challenges of running Charlton Athletic. Katrien started with very little experience, and may have been wise to utilise credible advice rather than assume you can do absolutely everything by yourself, but I understand that pride may play a part in that approach.
    If Katrien, as the person in situ, can be allowed to influence Roland rather more, and if she can be more open to the positive forces associated with the club, then the future may be better than the recent past.
    Humility is not a sign of weakness, but often a sign of strength. A siege mentality may be understandable given the criticism she has attracted, but a rethink regarding what advice to listen to, and what help to accept may strengthen Katrien's credibility.

    I literally see her position in the club like that of the marketing manager I am often fobbed off to when pitching my company's offering. The decision maker is RD, you try and do everything to engage him, keep him on the phone, convince him what you have to offer is worthy of 2 minutes of his time. He doesn't want to listen, he says 'speak to KM, she can make a decision'.

    You try a bit harder to say something that will resonate, but in the end, you end up being directed down to KM having got no buy in whatsoever. You fool yourself that KM will actually do something with your proposal. You pitch her, she says 'sounds great'. You agree to speak again in a few days. You ring KM back, 'oh sorry, haven't spoken to RD yet'. You tolerate this for a while until you realise, even if KM thinks it is a good idea, she probably doesn't have the balls to follow through with it just in case it goes belly up.

    I use this example not to have a pop at KM, but just because I can imagine this is exactly what happens at the Valley. KM can oversee everyday operational/administrative decisions and have a say. Anything 'strategic' or of the sort will be up to RD. He is communicating with us as he sees fit and although I would like the recent efforts of everyone to nurture 2 way communication, it won't happen :(
  • edited March 2015
    Shrew said:

    I don't think Katrein has been subjected to uneccessary abuse on this forum, merely constructive criticism.

    this kind of constructive criticism HG ?

    by CharltonToddler · February 13
    Roland, Luzon and Katrien fuck off out of our club.
    Since when did one person's potty mouth, Become a spokesperson for the rest of CL ?

  • Rossman92 said:

    I really like this post, however I don't believe KM will become a lifer in the foreseeable future, although that'd certainly be awesome. There's other ways to send it to her. You could always find her address and send her a letter in the post. I agree however that she needs to see the lifers for what we are


    She can be contacted at the following address:

    Charlton Athletic Football Club
    The Valley
    Floyd Road
    London SE7

    Good luck, but I doubt very much you'd a reply to any message sent there either.


    I've not been impressed by Ms M's attempts at dialogue with the fans. She comes across to me as being nothing more than a lickspittle toady for RD, who himself is an autocrat by nature and a man whom, I get the impression frankly, doesn't give a toss what the supporters think.

    Of course I would like there to be a greater involvement with the fans. It would be a fine thing and I applaud those who extend the hand of co-operation and support. We all feel a strong commitment for this club..... it's in our DNA.

    But sadly, the experience we've had to date is not encouraging. Good luck to those who are trying to start a dialogue. I wish you well, truly I do, but I think you're in for a long haul with very little chance of reward.

    Good luck.
  • I think the problem is this. For many years the club has operated in a way that meant rational, informed arguments put forward by supporters about the running of the business were taken on board and adopted by the club and this of itself made supporters feel valued and respected. They could also see their interests were represented and shared within the staff and on the board, so there was a high level of trust.

    The current regime cannot easily work in that way because rationality is subordinate to Roland's writ, of which Katrien is the day to day manifestation. So the rationale of a particular case is no longer what takes precedence. That's why you can't really have an effective dialogue. Communication, such as it is, will be one way. Take It or leave it. Pay up and shut up.

    Layered on top of that is the effect of an inexperienced and threadbare administration, which is making too many mistakes, in part because it cannot take advantage of the goodwill and knowledge available to it. There is no real animosity in any direction and no reason for any, simply frustration at the lack of mutual understanding. We might as well be talking a different language.

    I think the problem is this. For many years the club has operated in a way that meant rational, informed arguments put forward by supporters about the running of the business were taken on board and adopted by the club and this of itself made supporters feel valued and respected. They could also see their interests were represented and shared within the staff and on the board, so there was a high level of trust.

    The current regime cannot easily work in that way because rationality is subordinate to Roland's writ, of which Katrien is the day to day manifestation. So the rationale of a particular case is no longer what takes precedence. That's why you can't really have an effective dialogue. Communication, such as it is, will be one way. Take It or leave it. Pay up and shut up.

    Layered on top of that is the effect of an inexperienced and threadbare administration, which is making too many mistakes, in part because it cannot take advantage of the goodwill and knowledge available to it. There is no real animosity in any direction and no reason for any, simply frustration at the lack of mutual understanding. We might as well be talking a different language.

    Did anyone ever speak to Cash, if indeed he was our owner?
  • I think the problem is this. For many years the club has operated in a way that meant rational, informed arguments put forward by supporters about the running of the business were taken on board and adopted by the club and this of itself made supporters feel valued and respected. They could also see their interests were represented and shared within the staff and on the board, so there was a high level of trust.

    The current regime cannot easily work in that way because rationality is subordinate to Roland's writ, of which Katrien is the day to day manifestation. So the rationale of a particular case is no longer what takes precedence. That's why you can't really have an effective dialogue. Communication, such as it is, will be one way. Take It or leave it. Pay up and shut up.

    Layered on top of that is the effect of an inexperienced and threadbare administration, which is making too many mistakes, in part because it cannot take advantage of the goodwill and knowledge available to it. There is no real animosity in any direction and no reason for any, simply frustration at the lack of mutual understanding. We might as well be talking a different language.

    I think the problem is this. For many years the club has operated in a way that meant rational, informed arguments put forward by supporters about the running of the business were taken on board and adopted by the club and this of itself made supporters feel valued and respected. They could also see their interests were represented and shared within the staff and on the board, so there was a high level of trust.

    The current regime cannot easily work in that way because rationality is subordinate to Roland's writ, of which Katrien is the day to day manifestation. So the rationale of a particular case is no longer what takes precedence. That's why you can't really have an effective dialogue. Communication, such as it is, will be one way. Take It or leave it. Pay up and shut up.

    Layered on top of that is the effect of an inexperienced and threadbare administration, which is making too many mistakes, in part because it cannot take advantage of the goodwill and knowledge available to it. There is no real animosity in any direction and no reason for any, simply frustration at the lack of mutual understanding. We might as well be talking a different language.

    Did anyone ever speak to Cash, if indeed he was our owner?
    No, but equally he didn't run the club.
  • edited March 2015

    I think the problem is this. For many years the club has operated in a way that meant rational, informed arguments put forward by supporters about the running of the business were taken on board and adopted by the club and this of itself made supporters feel valued and respected. They could also see their interests were represented and shared within the staff and on the board, so there was a high level of trust.

    The current regime cannot easily work in that way because rationality is subordinate to Roland's writ, of which Katrien is the day to day manifestation. So the rationale of a particular case is no longer what takes precedence. That's why you can't really have an effective dialogue. Communication, such as it is, will be one way. Take It or leave it. Pay up ented and shared within the staff and on the board, so there was a high level of trust.

    The current regime cannot easily work in that way because rationality is subordinate to Roland's writ, of which Katrien is the day to day manifestation. So the rationale of a particular case is no longer what takes precedence. That's why you can't really have an effective dialogue. Communication, such as it is, will be one way. Take It or leave it. Pay up and shut up.

    Layered on top of that is the effect of an inexperienced and threadbare administration, which is making too many mistakes, in part because it cannot take advantage of the goodwill and knowledge available to it. There is no real animosity in any direction and no reason for any, simply frustration at the lack of mutual understanding. We might as well be talking a different language.

    Did anyone ever speak to Cash, if indeed he was our owner?
    No, but equally he didn't run the club.
    So why the outcry and meetings demanding action now (which I can understand) but not back then?
  • Sponsored links:


  • I think the problem is this. For many years the club has operated in a way that meant rational, informed arguments put forward by supporters about the running of the business were taken on board and adopted by the club and this of itself made supporters feel valued and respected. They could also see their interests were represented and shared within the staff and on the board, so there was a high level of trust.

    The current regime cannot easily work in that way because rationality is subordinate to Roland's writ, of which Katrien is the day to day manifestation. So the rationale of a particular case is no longer what takes precedence. That's why you can't really have an effective dialogue. Communication, such as it is, will be one way. Take It or leave it. Pay up ented and shared within the staff and on the board, so there was a high level of trust.

    The current regime cannot easily work in that way because rationality is subordinate to Roland's writ, of which Katrien is the day to day manifestation. So the rationale of a particular case is no longer what takes precedence. That's why you can't really have an effective dialogue. Communication, such as it is, will be one way. Take It or leave it. Pay up and shut up.

    Layered on top of that is the effect of an inexperienced and threadbare administration, which is making too many mistakes, in part because it cannot take advantage of the goodwill and knowledge available to it. There is no real animosity in any direction and no reason for any, simply frustration at the lack of mutual understanding. We might as well be talking a different language.

    Did anyone ever speak to Cash, if indeed he was our owner?
    No, but equally he didn't run the club.
    So why the outcry and meetings demanding action now (which I can understand) but not back then?
    If you need to be told ?

    1. Airman Brown had the issues with Tj, Slaters and co, so it would have looked personal if he had been involved.
    2. For the rest of us we all knew that the money had dried up from Cash.(there's a joke there somewhere) at the beginning of last season, hence why CP was so downbeat about our chances. the clue was we got Sordel and church just days before the season started.
    we guessed or heard from various sources (another joke)that they were looking for buyers, so we knew what was about to happen, did we not ? what would be the purpose of a meeting ? Do we know any multi millionaires who want to buy how club and will love and cherish it like we do ?

    Any reply to that Arthur, or any other respected CL posters ?



  • I would hope that KM is at least now getting feedback that most fans, whether it be CL, Trust or whatever genuinely want help with club. There is the element of the daft, the element of do what the supporters say but RD can pay for it. However most of us want to help. Most consumer businesses would give a lot for a structured dialogue with their customers - that is exactly what are.
  • redman said:

    I would hope that KM is at least now getting feedback that most fans, whether it be CL, Trust or whatever genuinely want help with club. There is the element of the daft, the element of do what the supporters say but RD can pay for it. However most of us want to help. Most consumer businesses would give a lot for a structured dialogue with their customers - that is exactly what are.

    Meire does not seem too keen on dialogue with the fans, lip service nothing much more
  • edited March 2015

    I think the problem is this. For many years the club has operated in a way that meant rational, informed arguments put forward by supporters about the running of the business were taken on board and adopted by the club and this of itself made supporters feel valued and respected. They could also see their interests were represented and shared within the staff and on the board, so there was a high level of trust.

    The current regime cannot easily work in that way because rationality is subordinate to Roland's writ, of which Katrien is the day to day manifestation. So the rationale of a particular case is no longer what takes precedence. That's why you can't really have an effective dialogue. Communication, such as it is, will be one way. Take It or leave it. Pay up ented and shared within the staff and on the board, so there was a high level of trust.

    The current regime cannot easily work in that way because rationality is subordinate to Roland's writ, of which Katrien is the day to day manifestation. So the rationale of a particular case is no longer what takes precedence. That's why you can't really have an effective dialogue. Communication, such as it is, will be one way. Take It or leave it. Pay up and shut up.

    Layered on top of that is the effect of an inexperienced and threadbare administration, which is making too many mistakes, in part because it cannot take advantage of the goodwill and knowledge available to it. There is no real animosity in any direction and no reason for any, simply frustration at the lack of mutual understanding. We might as well be talking a different language.

    Did anyone ever speak to Cash, if indeed he was our owner?
    No, but equally he didn't run the club.
    So why the outcry and meetings demanding action now (which I can understand) but not back then?
    If you need to be told ?

    1. Airman Brown had the issues with Tj, Slaters and co, so it would have looked personal if he had been involved.
    2. For the rest of us we all knew that the money had dried up from Cash.(there's a joke there somewhere) at the beginning of last season, hence why CP was so downbeat about our chances. the clue was we got Sordel and church just days before the season started.
    we guessed or heard from various sources (another joke)that they were looking for buyers, so we knew what was about to happen, did we not ? what would be the purpose of a meeting ? Do we know any multi millionaires who want to buy how club and will love and cherish it like we do ?

    Any reply to that Arthur, or any other respected CL posters ?



    Just to say thank you for answering my question.

    Dont understand your 'if you need to be told' bit. I dont need to know, but I'd like to, hence the question.

    So we were happy with the communications from our new owners from the time Jiminez and his front/back men took over?
    Because I thought we didnt have a clue who was behind them. Maybe that was just me not paying attention.

    Obviously at the end it was all pointless, but early on when there wasnt the communications, why no meetings/protests?
    Obviously not involving AB for the reason you state.

    You say we 'knew' what was going on, but a quick look at CL suggests that it was rumour, hints from 'those in the know', and arguments between those who believed the rumours and those who didnt. As you say a lot of guesswork, so hardly good communications with the owner. all I'm asking is why we are so upset now, but nothing much happened under the last lot.
    I would suggest that we were very far indeed from knowing what was going on.

  • There was a lot of unhappiness about the second, post-cash, half of the Spivs regime.

    One reason that some didn't protest was so as to not undermine the then manager.

    Another was the number of legal cases then happening one of which included a person now very prominent in the Trust/G21 meetings.

    But as Covered End and Airman have said they were looking to sell. They wanted to go, many wanted them gone hence no protests behind the West Stand.

    And for all the moaning and groaning, ripping the soul out of the club, "I'm never going again" statements there has only been some chants, one protest at the ground (10 people but at least they gave it ago) and the public meeting from which the outcomes we shall hear in good time.



  • Possibly the difference between than and now is that the club used to be one entity, but now it is a branch. However annoyed people were with the Cash/Jimenez regime there seemed to be one force to deal with and anyway it's public face, Chris Powell, was an effective buffer/filter of angst. Now it is a lot more confusing, and therefore more worrying.
  • bobmunro said:

    seth plum said:

    Possibly the difference between than and now is that the club used to be one entity, but now it is a branch. However annoyed people were with the Cash/Jimenez regime there seemed to be one force to deal with and anyway it's public face, Chris Powell, was an effective buffer/filter of angst. Now it is a lot more confusing, and therefore more worrying.

    With all due respect, Seth, that is utterly nonsensical and an attempt in my opinion to frame a totally fatuous argument to counter a very valid question from Arthur.

    They never communicated their strategy, largely I would suspect because they didn't have one apart from chancing a bit of investment from Cash, a businessman whose interests are held in a trust in the British Virgin Islands and managed via a company in Geneva, Switzerland, and hoping they could somehow sneak into the Prem so they could cash out. They were a bunch of chancers who may have been one force but it wasn't dealt with - probably because we were winning. As soon as Cash realised his punt wasn't going to come off he buggered off leaving said Chuckle Brothers to cut and run as soon as they could. And in the interim starved the playing side of any investment. A time everyone could say it was 'our Charlton'? I don't think so.

    How was Chris an effective buffer - was he communicating the strategy? How is it more confusing now than it was then?

    You are mistaken to assert that what I have written is nonsensical, and neither have I framed an argument. I think you missed the word 'possibly'.
    My point is that reactions towards the previous regime manifested themselves in different ways to now.
    What is going on now is a reaction to a different set of circumstances in a different way. I am suggesting that the kind of reaction we have now is not an inappropriate one simply because it didn't happen previously.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!