Sues Parke's comments on Facebook were fairy pro regime and anti protest unfortunately as far as I can remember sadly, though I suppose in their positions they have to be really. Chris looked like he is was really biting his lio tbf at the Q & A
Some of the tone used on Facebook implied that it was the behaviour of fans that was ruining the club, rather than the owner and CEO.
Sue was also very unimpressed with Peter Varney for leaking what she felt should have been private and confidential mails.
And she's blabbing on Facebook like a Fishwife and making her husband look a right Charlie. I have no doubt that Katrien isn't stupid enough to need to be told to stay away she can see and feel it for herself. My money's on her missing next Saturday too as she would be the focal point for some serious outrage.
We're going to need some quotes guys
The unofficial CAFC Facebook page is full of angry comments, all directed at Katrien and Duchatelet. And until recently, Freaye. No-one has ever criticised Chris on there AFAIK, in fact a couple of people claim to know him and view him as a good guy.
It's hard to find stuff older than a day because the turnover of new posts is so high, but I've screenshotted one for you SE9.
Cheers. She seems quite deluded.
The agents comment was in response to Roland's network being a way to get players moved about for peanuts without paying agents.
We have no idea what conversations go on between RD, KM, RM, that Sue is privy to, so it's understandable that she has a different take on things to those of us on the outside - the paying "customers".
Would love to know the context with which she has written the protests could ruin the club. Do these people think we are doing this for some sort of fun? You only have to look at the staff and people in the lounges looking down at the protesters to know that some inside think we are deluded ones
Sues Parke's comments on Facebook were fairy pro regime and anti protest unfortunately as far as I can remember sadly, though I suppose in their positions they have to be really. Chris looked like he is was really biting his lio tbf at the Q & A
Some of the tone used on Facebook implied that it was the behaviour of fans that was ruining the club, rather than the owner and CEO.
Sue was also very unimpressed with Peter Varney for leaking what she felt should have been private and confidential mails.
And she's blabbing on Facebook like a Fishwife and making her husband look a right Charlie. I have no doubt that Katrien isn't stupid enough to need to be told to stay away she can see and feel it for herself. My money's on her missing next Saturday too as she would be the focal point for some serious outrage.
We're going to need some quotes guys
The unofficial CAFC Facebook page is full of angry comments, all directed at Katrien and Duchatelet. And until recently, Freaye. No-one has ever criticised Chris on there AFAIK, in fact a couple of people claim to know him and view him as a good guy.
It's hard to find stuff older than a day because the turnover of new posts is so high, but I've screenshotted one for you SE9.
Cheers. She seems quite deluded.
The agents comment was in response to Roland's network being a way to get players moved about for peanuts without paying agents.
We have no idea what conversations go on between RD, KM, RM, that Sue is privy to, so it's understandable that she has a different take on things to those of us on the outside - the paying "customers".
Would love to know the context with which she has written the protests could ruin the club. Do these people think we are doing this for some sort of fun? You only have to look at the staff and people in the lounges looking down at the protesters to know that some inside think we are deluded ones
To be fair though, it's difficult to physically look down at someone below you without those people below thinking that you're looking down at them metaphorically as well.
Sues Parke's comments on Facebook were fairy pro regime and anti protest unfortunately as far as I can remember sadly, though I suppose in their positions they have to be really. Chris looked like he is was really biting his lio tbf at the Q & A
Some of the tone used on Facebook implied that it was the behaviour of fans that was ruining the club, rather than the owner and CEO.
Sue was also very unimpressed with Peter Varney for leaking what she felt should have been private and confidential mails.
And she's blabbing on Facebook like a Fishwife and making her husband look a right Charlie. I have no doubt that Katrien isn't stupid enough to need to be told to stay away she can see and feel it for herself. My money's on her missing next Saturday too as she would be the focal point for some serious outrage.
We're going to need some quotes guys
The unofficial CAFC Facebook page is full of angry comments, all directed at Katrien and Duchatelet. And until recently, Freaye. No-one has ever criticised Chris on there AFAIK, in fact a couple of people claim to know him and view him as a good guy.
It's hard to find stuff older than a day because the turnover of new posts is so high, but I've screenshotted one for you SE9.
Cheers. She seems quite deluded.
The agents comment was in response to Roland's network being a way to get players moved about for peanuts without paying agents.
We have no idea what conversations go on between RD, KM, RM, that Sue is privy to, so it's understandable that she has a different take on things to those of us on the outside - the paying "customers".
Would love to know the context with which she has written the protests could ruin the club. Do these people think we are doing this for some sort of fun? You only have to look at the staff and people in the lounges looking down at the protesters to know that some inside think we are deluded ones
To be fair though, it's difficult to physically look down at someone below you without those people below thinking that you're looking down at them metaphorically as well.
Doesn't mean they are all pro-RD.
Agreed that not all are pro RD, and there have been plenty of thumbs ups from some including people who post on here.
However why do so many stand at the windows, it's fairly clear that some (no idea of names) think we are idiots!
Very sadly it is entirely inappropriate for anyone connected to someone employed by a business club to enter into a public debate over the issues concerning that business.
I understand it is not the first occasion this particular lady has chosen to "step into the fray". To present any form of argument in relation to the activities and actions undertaken by the business at any level infers a level of knowledge of the business known only to employees who are bound by the appropriate employee confidentiality.
It is unprofessional and reflects very poorly on the individual herself and by connection very sadly on an honourable employee who has without doubt served the club with distinction for many years.
The allegation of unprofessional behaviour upon the release of certain emails when they quite clearly expose the undeniable unprofessional performance by the club is a delicious irony.
She really should know better. Rather than expend her energy in promoting the values of the owner and the executive of the club she may better spend her time encouraging those same people to explain themselves and their actions to those, however misguided their actions may appear, who have nothing but the best interests of the club at heart.
They singularly have failed to do so.
As for "having a clue as to what is going on" then I seriously doubt there is anything fundamentally different to the challenges facing Charlton Athletic than any other Championship club. I would equally suggest "among the many" there are a large number who have spent a large part of their business lives and leisure pursuits in the corporate / commercial world and in or around senior football.
The lady would do well to remember we are where we are today after prolonged and protracted attempts to engage this executive in a meaningful constructive dialogue. A dialogue with which the executive have effectively refused to engage.
Even if you accept their intentions are honourable, in face of the stumblingly poor performance both on and off the pitch, in the absence of any meaningful dialogue, people will register their dissatisfaction in any way they think appropriate.
Mrs Parkes would, in future, do very well to keep her own counsel.
Woah there people. I might not agree with what this lady has posted, but it's just her view, same as any other. Let's not paint her out to be the enemy here, even if you think she is misguided.
She's just a fan, same as us, and she isn't responsible for the mess we are in.
The woman's comments are a bit controversial. Not many people are going to agree with her.
I want to know more about laundry basketgate. What is the fallout, what was the reaction, and if any new more fragrant laundry baskets have been ordered. An insider would know this stuff.
It's a secret, you don't wash your dirty laundry in public.
Or in other words I think Christopher should tell his missus to button it.
This with bells on. As others have said, she shouldn't be as forthcoming with her opinion when she, by association, represents a closer link to the hierarchy of the club. Yes she's technically a fan, the same as us, if she's not on the payroll, but given the information she so proudly claims to be privvy to, she should have a little more decorum and think from a PR perspective before she types. Although to be fair, PR clearly isn't discussed at the Valley much these days!
Well done to Chris and Sue... Charlton through and through. God alone knows what they make of what's going on now.
You can read what Sue thinks on Facebook.
Airman, you've gone quiet on this one!!
I have little respect for Chris or Sue's opinions, although I think in general they are good people with a passion for Charlton. I have known Chris for a very long time and I'm not going to slag him off on here. It does baffle me that they are often given credit by others for enjoying free match hospitality around the country, when many others pay out each away game to receive much less, but that's not really their fault. Many fans would accept a free meal and free directors' box and boardroom tickets if offered, so who can blame them? I'd just give a bit more credit to the likes of Betty Hutchins, Jean Tindell and Les Turner, by comparison (and plenty of others, some on here).
There are also occasions when Chris has been needed to represent the club because no board director has been present, which has not infrequently been the case since PV stood down as chief executive in 2008 and probably prior to his arrival in 1997 too.
Sue has chosen to air her views in the public domain, so I think it's for others to form their own judgement based on that. I don't think it's unfair to point people in that direction, given she has chosen to publish them in the way she has and they are not what people may have assumed.
Very sadly it is entirely inappropriate for anyone connected to someone employed by a business club to enter into a public debate over the issues concerning that business.
I understand it is not the first occasion this particular lady has chosen to "step into the fray". To present any form of argument in relation to the activities and actions undertaken by the business at any level infers a level of knowledge of the business known only to employees who are bound by the appropriate employee confidentiality.
It is unprofessional and reflects very poorly on the individual herself and by connection very sadly on an honourable employee who has without doubt served the club with distinction for many years.
The allegation of unprofessional behaviour upon the release of certain emails when they quite clearly expose the undeniable unprofessional performance by the club is a delicious irony.
She really should know better. Rather than expend her energy in promoting the values of the owner and the executive of the club she may better spend her time encouraging those same people to explain themselves and their actions to those, however misguided their actions may appear, who have nothing but the best interests of the club at heart.
They singularly have failed to do so.
As for "having a clue as to what is going on" then I seriously doubt there is anything fundamentally different to the challenges facing Charlton Athletic than any other Championship club. I would equally suggest "among the many" there are a large number who have spent a large part of their business lives and leisure pursuits in the corporate / commercial world and in or around senior football.
The lady would do well to remember we are where we are today after prolonged and protracted attempts to engage this executive in a meaningful constructive dialogue. A dialogue with which the executive have effectively refused to engage.
Even if you accept their intentions are honourable, in face of the stumblingly poor performance both on and off the pitch, in the absence of any meaningful dialogue, people will register their dissatisfaction in any they think appropriate.
Mrs Parkes would, in future, do very well to keep her own counsel.
Spot on from Grapevine49, as always.
'It is entirely inappropriate for anyone connected to someone employed by a business club to enter into a public debate over the issues concerning that business.
The allegation of unprofessional behaviour upon the release of certain emails when they quite clearly expose the undeniable unprofessional performance by the club is a delicious irony.
Mrs Parkes would, in future, do very well to keep her own counsel.'
When the team travel away, stay in hotels, have meals and such like then somebody has to settle up with the people, get receipts and such like. Chris is the person who does that housekeeping on away trips, and if he hadn't been with the team at Hull yesterday who would have done it? certainly not the kit man because he would have been fully occupied adapting laundry baskets. If Chris and Sue get accommodation and such like because he is effectively working then fair enough, just like it was fair enough as the only Charlton official at Hull yesterday to be entertained by their hospitality.
I agree with Airman about Betty, Jean and Les...and Seb too, and if we ever get to any sunny uplands ever again, they ought to get free travel, a slap up treat, and a slap up seat, at the most difficult away game of each season...minimum.
I thought yesterday and Tuesday made my blood boil, but that someone can post such arrogant tripe has tipped me over the edge. So the owner knows best, children, and that nice Mr Murray is nice, and if you are naughty and dare to make noises and be nasty to that nice Mr Roland then he will walk away and you oiks will have no club. So sit down, shut up and enjoy what is being served to you. And, above all, be grateful.
Then RD can explain the reasons behind decisions. Simple.
Well done to Chris and Sue... Charlton through and through. God alone knows what they make of what's going on now.
You can read what Sue thinks on Facebook.
Airman, you've gone quiet on this one!!
I have little respect for Chris or Sue's opinions, although I think in general they are good people with a passion for Charlton. I have known Chris for a very long time and I'm not going to slag him off on here. It does baffle me that they are often given credit by others for enjoying free match hospitality around the country, when many others pay out each away game to receive much less, but that's not really their fault. Many fans would accept a free meal and free directors' box and boardroom tickets if offered, so who can blame them? I'd just give a bit more credit to the likes of Betty Hutchins, Jean Tindell and Les Turner, by comparison (and plenty of others, some on here).
There are also occasions when Chris has been needed to represent the club because no board director has been present, which has not infrequently been the case since PV stood down as chief executive in 2008 and probably prior to his arrival in 1997 too.
Sue has chosen to air her views in the public domain, so I think it's for others to form their own judgement based on that. I don't think it's unfair to point people in that direction, given she has chosen to publish them in the way she has and they are not what people may have assumed.
It is undoubtably true that Sue Parkes' comments on a social media forum, are, at best, ill-advised. I have never met Sue, so I might be being unfair, but the comments sound like like those of someone who is keen to be seen as close to the power and therefore important in some way. This is true of any organisation. You always have people eager to demonstrate how close they are to power, thus giving themselves importance and self worth. But I don't know, I'm not a psychologist.
However, Sue Parkes is not the problem and she is not the only one to be commenting on what is happening from inside the club. There have been an increasing number of stories coming from people within the club on both sides of the story. The truth is this kind of unsubstantiated communication happens when there is a vacuum of real communication. When there is no meaningful information coming from the centre then any contribution is amplified, misunderstood, and often unhelpful.
I was told after the fans meeting that the new, that the club had learnt, that interim communications manager would make a difference and that we would see better communication about what is going on. In my view, since then, it has got worse. There has been, as far as I can see, a concerted effort to close down communication except in a very narrow way. Unfortunately for those in charge, things have got considerably worse since then and I find it difficult to see how they can now bring things back in a meaningful way without some wholesale change.
Well done to Chris and Sue... Charlton through and through. God alone knows what they make of what's going on now.
You can read what Sue thinks on Facebook.
Airman, you've gone quiet on this one!!
I have little respect for Chris or Sue's opinions, although I think in general they are good people with a passion for Charlton. I have known Chris for a very long time and I'm not going to slag him off on here. It does baffle me that they are often given credit by others for enjoying free match hospitality around the country, when many others pay out each away game to receive much less, but that's not really their fault. Many fans would accept a free meal and free directors' box and boardroom tickets if offered, so who can blame them? I'd just give a bit more credit to the likes of Betty Hutchins, Jean Tindell and Les Turner, by comparison (and plenty of others, some on here).
There are also occasions when Chris has been needed to represent the club because no board director has been present, which has not infrequently been the case since PV stood down as chief executive in 2008 and probably prior to his arrival in 1997 too.
Sue has chosen to air her views in the public domain, so I think it's for others to form their own judgement based on that. I don't think it's unfair to point people in that direction, given she has chosen to publish them in the way she has and they are not what people may have assumed.
It is undoubtably true that Sue Parkes' comments on a social media forum, are, at best, ill-advised. I have never met Sue, so I might be being unfair, but the comments sound like like those of someone who is keen to be seen as close to the power and therefore important in some way. This is true of any organisation. You always have people eager to demonstrate how close they are to power, thus giving themselves importance and self worth. But I don't know, I'm not a psychologist.
However, Sue Parkes is not the problem and she is not the only one to be commenting on what is happening from inside the club. There have been an increasing number of stories coming from people within the club on both sides of the story. The truth is this kind of unsubstantiated communication happens when there is a vacuum of real communication. When there is no meaningful information coming from the centre then any contribution is amplified, misunderstood, and often unhelpful.
I was told after the fans meeting that the new, that the club had learnt, that interim communications manager would make a difference and that we would see better communication about what is going on. In my view, since then, it has got worse. There has been, as far as I can see, a concerted effort to close down communication except in a very narrow way. Unfortunately for those in charge, things have got considerably worse since then and I find it difficult to see how they can now bring things back in a meaningful way without some wholesale change.
There is now zero communication ...wonder what will happen in February when our new Comms person starts ...unless it really was Canterbury!
Well done to Chris and Sue... Charlton through and through. God alone knows what they make of what's going on now.
You can read what Sue thinks on Facebook.
Airman, you've gone quiet on this one!!
I have little respect for Chris or Sue's opinions, although I think in general they are good people with a passion for Charlton. I have known Chris for a very long time and I'm not going to slag him off on here. It does baffle me that they are often given credit by others for enjoying free match hospitality around the country, when many others pay out each away game to receive much less, but that's not really their fault. Many fans would accept a free meal and free directors' box and boardroom tickets if offered, so who can blame them? I'd just give a bit more credit to the likes of Betty Hutchins, Jean Tindell and Les Turner, by comparison (and plenty of others, some on here).
There are also occasions when Chris has been needed to represent the club because no board director has been present, which has not infrequently been the case since PV stood down as chief executive in 2008 and probably prior to his arrival in 1997 too.
Sue has chosen to air her views in the public domain, so I think it's for others to form their own judgement based on that. I don't think it's unfair to point people in that direction, given she has chosen to publish them in the way she has and they are not what people may have assumed.
It is undoubtably true that Sue Parkes' comments on a social media forum, are, at best, ill-advised. I have never met Sue, so I might be being unfair, but the comments sound like like those of someone who is keen to be seen as close to the power and therefore important in some way. This is true of any organisation. You always have people eager to demonstrate how close they are to power, thus giving themselves importance and self worth. But I don't know, I'm not a psychologist.
However, Sue Parkes is not the problem and she is not the only one to be commenting on what is happening from inside the club. There have been an increasing number of stories coming from people within the club on both sides of the story. The truth is this kind of unsubstantiated communication happens when there is a vacuum of real communication. When there is no meaningful information coming from the centre then any contribution is amplified, misunderstood, and often unhelpful.
I was told after the fans meeting that the new, that the club had learnt, that interim communications manager would make a difference and that we would see better communication about what is going on. In my view, since then, it has got worse. There has been, as far as I can see, a concerted effort to close down communication except in a very narrow way. Unfortunately for those in charge, things have got considerably worse since then and I find it difficult to see how they can now bring things back in a meaningful way without some wholesale change.
You make a good point and it now seems the communication has all but shut down, so much so that the club won't even speak to the BBC other than in a statement. Murray's glib assurances were obviously meant for the media, hoping nobody would look deeper, and not for the fans.
The club is now operating independently from fans/customers, merely tolerating us on match days.
Messages from with, such as offered by Sue, only serve to add to the impression of an arrogant and detached elite sneering at the peasants outside the castle gates. On the plus side, we all know how those stories eventually end.
Just a few of those selected quotes. These seem almost to represent an official line on things. The concern is that some of Sue's comments imply inside knowledge which we are not privy to, which then makes you suspect that what she says may be the thoughts of others, higher in the club, as much as her own.
"In my opinion the editors of the VOTV are on the same level as the editors of the tabloids that published leaks from phone tapping" (for publishing the Varney emails)
"I don't see why we should feel we are entitled to to know every last thing about the running of a business which is not ours"
"Like it or not we are customers and have a choice"
"The name calling and horrendous wishes aimed at RD and KM by so-called fans are ... disgusting"
"I just feel that the day may come when fans will look back and think wish we hadn't caused all those problems"
"If there was more respect from a large number of the fans they would be listened to more"
"We'll be lucky if the owner doesn't walk away and leave us without a club at all"
Be careful what you wish for and better the devil you know? Sue Parkes must love watching Charlton getting stuffed week in week out. And as for the comment about being lucky to have a club to support should it not be the club are lucky to have the fans it has? You can't have one without the other IMO.
Comments
Doesn't mean they are all pro-RD.
However why do so many stand at the windows, it's fairly clear that some (no idea of names) think we are idiots!
They would rather keep the regime than the club move forward.
Very similar to the Vichy government in some respects.
I understand it is not the first occasion this particular lady has chosen to "step into the fray". To present any form of argument in relation to the activities and actions undertaken by the business at any level infers a level of knowledge of the business known only to employees who are bound by the appropriate employee confidentiality.
It is unprofessional and reflects very poorly on the individual herself and by connection very sadly on an honourable employee who has without doubt served the club with distinction for many years.
The allegation of unprofessional behaviour upon the release of certain emails when they quite clearly expose the undeniable unprofessional performance by the club is a delicious irony.
She really should know better. Rather than expend her energy in promoting the values of the owner and the executive of the club she may better spend her time encouraging those same people to explain themselves and their actions to those, however misguided their actions may appear, who have nothing but the best interests of the club at heart.
They singularly have failed to do so.
As for "having a clue as to what is going on" then I seriously doubt there is anything fundamentally different to the challenges facing Charlton Athletic than any other Championship club. I would equally suggest "among the many" there are a large number who have spent a large part of their business lives and leisure pursuits in the corporate / commercial world and in or around senior football.
The lady would do well to remember we are where we are today after prolonged and protracted attempts to engage this executive in a meaningful constructive dialogue. A dialogue with which the executive have effectively refused to engage.
Even if you accept their intentions are honourable, in face of the stumblingly poor performance both on and off the pitch, in the absence of any meaningful dialogue, people will register their dissatisfaction in any way they think appropriate.
Mrs Parkes would, in future, do very well to keep her own counsel.
'Delicious irony', the point perfectly made.
Seemingly a Duchatelet apologist.
Although to be fair, PR clearly isn't discussed at the Valley much these days!
There are also occasions when Chris has been needed to represent the club because no board director has been present, which has not infrequently been the case since PV stood down as chief executive in 2008 and probably prior to his arrival in 1997 too.
Sue has chosen to air her views in the public domain, so I think it's for others to form their own judgement based on that. I don't think it's unfair to point people in that direction, given she has chosen to publish them in the way she has and they are not what people may have assumed.
'It is entirely inappropriate for anyone connected to someone employed by a business club to enter into a public debate over the issues concerning that business.
The allegation of unprofessional behaviour upon the release of certain emails when they quite clearly expose the undeniable unprofessional performance by the club is a delicious irony.
Mrs Parkes would, in future, do very well to keep her own counsel.'
If Chris and Sue get accommodation and such like because he is effectively working then fair enough, just like it was fair enough as the only Charlton official at Hull yesterday to be entertained by their hospitality.
I agree with Airman about Betty, Jean and Les...and Seb too, and if we ever get to any sunny uplands ever again, they ought to get free travel, a slap up treat, and a slap up seat, at the most difficult away game of each season...minimum.
Wtf, Rolland has already done a very good job of that without our help!
However, Sue Parkes is not the problem and she is not the only one to be commenting on what is happening from inside the club. There have been an increasing number of stories coming from people within the club on both sides of the story. The truth is this kind of unsubstantiated communication happens when there is a vacuum of real communication. When there is no meaningful information coming from the centre then any contribution is amplified, misunderstood, and often unhelpful.
I was told after the fans meeting that the new, that the club had learnt, that interim communications manager would make a difference and that we would see better communication about what is going on. In my view, since then, it has got worse. There has been, as far as I can see, a concerted effort to close down communication except in a very narrow way. Unfortunately for those in charge, things have got considerably worse since then and I find it difficult to see how they can now bring things back in a meaningful way without some wholesale change.
The club is now operating independently from fans/customers, merely tolerating us on match days.
Messages from with, such as offered by Sue, only serve to add to the impression of an arrogant and detached elite sneering at the peasants outside the castle gates. On the plus side, we all know how those stories eventually end.
"In my opinion the editors of the VOTV are on the same level as the editors of the tabloids that published leaks from phone tapping" (for publishing the Varney emails)
"I don't see why we should feel we are entitled to to know every last thing about the running of a business which is not ours"
"Like it or not we are customers and have a choice"
"The name calling and horrendous wishes aimed at RD and KM by so-called fans are ... disgusting"
"I just feel that the day may come when fans will look back and think wish we hadn't caused all those problems"
"If there was more respect from a large number of the fans they would be listened to more"
"We'll be lucky if the owner doesn't walk away and leave us without a club at all"