Haven't read all of the comments on this thread but the SLP story is all just Rhetoric, really. it means nothing. My rugby club has a motto 'Deeds Not Words' and that's what we need, that's what we want! #DuchateletOUT #MeireOUT #WeWantOurCharltonBack
I understood (but I'm willing to be corrected) that when he bought the club he was expecting FFP to be implemented. That being the case, I suppose there was an outside chance his ideology could have worked. I think that he's trying to get his head around how he can make it work without the FFP regs.
Anyway, this whole thing about 'we've made mistakes in the past' is cobblers, because as others have said, they continue to make them. Listening to him, I can understand why we got Peeters, Luzon and Fraeye because of his philosophy regarding younger players and the academy, but he made the same mistake 3 times because they were all under prepared for the rigours of the Championship. Now maybe making the same mistake twice with Bob and Guy was just about acceptable possibly, doing it again with dear Karel was unforgivable. As was getting shot of some of our best players and recruiting crap. The guy just can't see beyond the bubble that is Belgium or his chums.
There's a saying that people buy from people. I've been reminded of that this week regarding a major purchase. Been sodded around by one muppet and bought from another who was utterly brilliant to deal with. I just think that if they actually came out and put their hands up and admitted they've cocked up, they may have bought themselves a bit of credit. But they continue to hide behind the same old 'We've made mistakes' comment and carry on making them. Plus Katy is just doing what she's told. I don't buy any of the chat about her being in charge and he doesn't stick his oar in. I suppose we should be grateful that we have Riga instead of Norbert Vinaigre though.
I fear for the club in a way I didn't when we were at Selhurst and I'm not sure why that is.
Ultimately he's totally underestimated the demands of the Championship and I really think he's bought the wrong club. I reckon that if he wanted to prove something, he should have invested in a top half of the table Conference club and built that up. All he's going to do with Charlton is take it down the drain.
The knock on is bad regarding future support. Thankfully I converted my son to an Addick. We tried with my grandson, he got to an age where he was interested in football and we went once with him and a little while later we went again and now he doesn't want to go. Thinks we're rubbish - he's not wrong. TBH we were a bit rubbish when I started supporting in the 60's, but it was a different sort of rubbish and those old enough will know what I mean. I've lost all interest in going, I feel totally disconnected from the place. My son is much the same. I used to get a bit excited about going but now if I think about it, it's just a drag.
Thanks Roland, that's what you've done for the family.
@LoOkOuT my point was really a warning against 'group think', intolerance of alternative views, loss of perspective, over estimation of Charlton's active anti-owner fan base and so on. In my youth I was very active in left-wing politics and was guilty of all of the above in a political sense.
In order to win we mustn't under estimate Roland or over estimate our own position. We are engaged in a war of attrition that could play out over a number of years. We need to continue to build support amongst the fans, take on alternative views with humour and patience and guard against intolerance.
I'm a ST holder in the Upper West and the wearing of a black and white scarf, standing up during the anti-RD song etc. is still a minority view. The vast majority of the West stand still buy food, don't join the protests etc.
I didn't plan to go to the game tomorrow but having seen Roland's comments I'll make the 200 mile round trip once again for the protest.
Please tell me why the club after 5 transfer windows has failed to secure a single permanent transfer of a UK player directly from another UK club in the top four divisions of the English game.
Telling stat that sums up the mess that is our recruitment
I've only just had a chance to read the SLP articles, which I did first, and I skipped all but the first few posts on here, so apologies if this repeats what a lot have said.
What a load of banal, dishonest cobblers. Hearing it at tedious length from the horse's mouth only increases the disbelief and outrage. If that is a charm offensive, you failed on the charm part of it, Roland. Next on my agenda is another contribution to the protest fund. I urge everyone who feels the same and can afford it to do the same.
@LoOkOuT my point was really a warning against 'group think', intolerance of alternative views, loss of perspective, over estimation of Charlton's active anti-owner fan base and so on. In my youth I was very active in left-wing politics and was guilty of all of the above in a political sense.
In order to win we mustn't under estimate Roland or over estimate our own position. We are engaged in a war of attrition that could play out over a number of years. We need to continue to build support amongst the fans, take on alternative views with humour and patience and guard against intolerance.
I'm a ST holder in the Upper West and the wearing of a black and white scarf, standing up during the anti-RD song etc. is still a minority view. The vast majority of the West stand still buy food, don't join the protests etc.
I didn't plan to go to the game tomorrow but having seen Roland's comments I'll make the 200 mile round trip once again for the protest.
Hi @ValleyMick, no idea how old you are and therefore whether you might be of Valley Party era, but I'll bring up again some key facts from that period
1. The first meeting of the Valley Party attracted 9 people. Nine. Not 900, not 90, but 9.
2. Yet four months later, three times as many people voted for the Valley party as were making the trip to Selhurst for games.
3. Yet again, in the ghastly lounge at Selhurst, even after the election, during the following season, I met people claiming to be Charlton fans who argued that we should stay at Selhurst.
Overall what am I suggesting here? Well mainly just another angle on @LoOkOuT 's excellent points, not to mention @Weegie Addick 's earlier. But I would assert that the West Stand is no more a barometer than this site. We are like every football club fanbase; we are made up of different demographics, and different attitudes to football, which don't always match what you'd expect from the demographics. Yes the West Stand is the last part of the stadium where you will expect the protest to be widely supported. That said,, the last game I was at, against Wolves, when I was standing up cos I wanted them out, I clearly saw people in the directors box doing the same thing, more than once. I was not mistaken, and it was several people, perhaps 5-6.
Actually I am sure that @Airman Brown will confirm, I and others in the Trust have often in the last two years cautioned him that "the view from the West" is very different to his, and we had to take that view into account. So if we now seem to be very closely aligned with his views now, you can be sure that it is after a great deal of thought and of work canvassing and listening. If you worry we'd succumb to "groupthink" you don't know the people involved.
I've only just had a chance to read the SLP articles, which I did first, and I skipped all but the first few posts on here, so apologies if this repeats what a lot have said.
What a load of banal, dishonest cobblers. Hearing it at tedious length from the horse's mouth only increases the disbelief and outrage. If that is a charm offensive, you failed on the charm part of it, Roland. Next on my agenda is another contribution to the protest fund. I urge everyone who feels the same and can afford it to do the same.
Sorry, I have not read all the comments on here, but to me, if he wants to avoid relegation he has to bring in about 3 or 4 GOOD FIT players and not one's like Fani and Sanogo who after 2 weeks training with us are still unlikely to take part in the 1st team.
@LoOkOuT my point was really a warning against 'group think', intolerance of alternative views, loss of perspective, over estimation of Charlton's active anti-owner fan base and so on. In my youth I was very active in left-wing politics and was guilty of all of the above in a political sense.
In order to win we mustn't under estimate Roland or over estimate our own position. We are engaged in a war of attrition that could play out over a number of years. We need to continue to build support amongst the fans, take on alternative views with humour and patience and guard against intolerance.
I'm a ST holder in the Upper West and the wearing of a black and white scarf, standing up during the anti-RD song etc. is still a minority view. The vast majority of the West stand still buy food, don't join the protests etc.
I didn't plan to go to the game tomorrow but having seen Roland's comments I'll make the 200 mile round trip once again for the protest.
I understand that and that's why I prefaced the comment that I wasn't taking you to task personally. But I think one of the sentiments implied is used to dismiss the site. If you think there aren't a range of views represented here, then how do you explain PL54 and Colin still being around? ;-) (joke)
Even with the logic of hiring Peeters, Luzon and Fraeye (that reasoning is laughable by the way), because they're good with young players, doesn't stand up. Off the top of my head I can think of three Championship coaches that have been unattached who have proven experience of working with younger players. Peace, O'Driscoll and Gray. Even looking at our own, we had Matthew who he fired and Nathan Jones, who he let go.
on the field - rush through inexperienced but cheap young players & put them in situations way above their ability level too soon. off the field - rush through inexperienced but cheap young managers & put them in situations way above their ability level too soon.
It was an email which he sent and it read as follows ‘can we talk about an investment opportunity in Charlton’. Now, what is an investment opportunity? Maybe they want to invest in a new billboard or I don’t know. “I diverted this email to my CEO to handle it. It is only five or six months later it became clear that what he wanted to talk about was a takeover of the club.
Well, why didn't your illustrious CEO reply with a question "what exactly is the investment you are proposing" rather than waiting 6 months to find out it was a takeover proposal. After all, this was coming from Peter Varney not some Joe Bloggs on the street.
on the field - rush through inexperienced but cheap young players & put them in situations way above their ability level too soon. off the field - rush through inexperienced but cheap young managers & put them in situations way above their ability level too soon.
Do not forget on the board - rush through inexperienced but cheap management/CEO & put them in situations way above their ability level too soon.
It was an email which he sent and it read as follows ‘can we talk about an investment opportunity in Charlton’. Now, what is an investment opportunity? Maybe they want to invest in a new billboard or I don’t know. “I diverted this email to my CEO to handle it. It is only five or six months later it became clear that what he wanted to talk about was a takeover of the club.
Well, why didn't your illustrious CEO reply with a question "what exactly is the investment you are proposing" rather than waiting 6 months to find out it was a takeover proposal.
Like I said, bullshit.
Look, it's a high pressure existence being a CEO, dealing with lots of serious and intractable problems...
Like where the hell is a girl to find the Reply button in an email she is reading, while busy multi-tasking on more important things, like, well, you know, important stuff, like, em, eh, like, maybe, eh, what scarf to wear this week?
I've only just had a chance to read the SLP articles, which I did first, and I skipped all but the first few posts on here, so apologies if this repeats what a lot have said.
What a load of banal, dishonest cobblers. Hearing it at tedious length from the horse's mouth only increases the disbelief and outrage. If that is a charm offensive, you failed on the charm part of it, Roland. Next on my agenda is another contribution to the protest fund. I urge everyone who feels the same and can afford it to do the same.
Just thought this should be repeated.
Or, easier.......
BUMP.
And Mountsfield put his money where his mouth is!
I'm back on the 24th......shall donate another £100 then.
Amidst all that interminable shite there's something in there that really reveals Roland not to be a football man. I know people have highlighted this quote for other reasons but it's this:
'let’s say you have a squad of 35 players which happens in the Championship - there are only 11 starting players. That means only one in three players are happy at the beginning of the game.'
Firstly, we're bottom, and we've spent the last two years flirting with the relegation spots. That means in general there's been around 20 other teams having a far more pleasant time of it than us. The conclusion you could draw from that is that if other teams have squads of 35 players and they've been doing better than us for the past two years then maybe it works Roland. Bournemouth had a squad of around 30 and won the league. Watford had around 40 players and Norwich had 35. These are all now Premier League teams. The problem is Roland applies business strategies to football problems.
He talks about how there are only 11 starting players, meaning 2 thirds of the squad are an under-utilised workforce and so are unhappy. As if he gives a shit about their happiness or knows anything about how to manage a football dressing room. What he really means is that he doesn't want to pay two thirds of the staff to not do anything on a Saturday, even though any manager worth his salt will rotate his team, keep his players motivated, bring players in to cover injury and use squad competition to increase performance. He just has completely zero understanding of what it is to challenge in a league of this nature. We can now see where Karel got his 'you only need 11 players' spiel from, which is interesting in itself as that's obviously the party line, but it means we're doomed to forever have squads made up of unready youth players and no depth or competition.
He's permanently going to tell us that they know what they're doing but it's knowledge coming from a microchips magnate and a competition lawyer whose only experience working in football is a series of colossal omnishambles and increasingly ridiculous PR gaffes. They're a bunch of wankers is what I'm getting at.
excellent post - really pulled apart and highlighted his incompetence re: squad stance
Amidst all that interminable shite there's something in there that really reveals Roland not to be a football man. I know people have highlighted this quote for other reasons but it's this:
'let’s say you have a squad of 35 players which happens in the Championship - there are only 11 starting players. That means only one in three players are happy at the beginning of the game.'
Firstly, we're bottom, and we've spent the last two years flirting with the relegation spots. That means in general there's been around 20 other teams having a far more pleasant time of it than us. The conclusion you could draw from that is that if other teams have squads of 35 players and they've been doing better than us for the past two years then maybe it works Roland. Bournemouth had a squad of around 30 and won the league. Watford had around 40 players and Norwich had 35. These are all now Premier League teams. The problem is Roland applies business strategies to football problems.
He talks about how there are only 11 starting players, meaning 2 thirds of the squad are an under-utilised workforce and so are unhappy. As if he gives a shit about their happiness or knows anything about how to manage a football dressing room. What he really means is that he doesn't want to pay two thirds of the staff to not do anything on a Saturday, even though any manager worth his salt will rotate his team, keep his players motivated, bring players in to cover injury and use squad competition to increase performance. He just has completely zero understanding of what it is to challenge in a league of this nature. We can now see where Karel got his 'you only need 11 players' spiel from, which is interesting in itself as that's obviously the party line, but it means we're doomed to forever have squads made up of unready youth players and no depth or competition.
He's permanently going to tell us that they know what they're doing but it's knowledge coming from a microchips magnate and a competition lawyer whose only experience working in football is a series of colossal omnishambles and increasingly ridiculous PR gaffes. They're a bunch of wankers is what I'm getting at.
excellent post - really pulled apart and highlighted his incompetence re: squad stance
Do you have a random fact to brighten up the day Cables? :-)
Amidst all that interminable shite there's something in there that really reveals Roland not to be a football man. I know people have highlighted this quote for other reasons but it's this:
'let’s say you have a squad of 35 players which happens in the Championship - there are only 11 starting players. That means only one in three players are happy at the beginning of the game.'
Firstly, we're bottom, and we've spent the last two years flirting with the relegation spots. That means in general there's been around 20 other teams having a far more pleasant time of it than us. The conclusion you could draw from that is that if other teams have squads of 35 players and they've been doing better than us for the past two years then maybe it works Roland. Bournemouth had a squad of around 30 and won the league. Watford had around 40 players and Norwich had 35. These are all now Premier League teams. The problem is Roland applies business strategies to football problems.
He talks about how there are only 11 starting players, meaning 2 thirds of the squad are an under-utilised workforce and so are unhappy. As if he gives a shit about their happiness or knows anything about how to manage a football dressing room. What he really means is that he doesn't want to pay two thirds of the staff to not do anything on a Saturday, even though any manager worth his salt will rotate his team, keep his players motivated, bring players in to cover injury and use squad competition to increase performance. He just has completely zero understanding of what it is to challenge in a league of this nature. We can now see where Karel got his 'you only need 11 players' spiel from, which is interesting in itself as that's obviously the party line, but it means we're doomed to forever have squads made up of unready youth players and no depth or competition.
He's permanently going to tell us that they know what they're doing but it's knowledge coming from a microchips magnate and a competition lawyer whose only experience working in football is a series of colossal omnishambles and increasingly ridiculous PR gaffes. They're a bunch of wankers is what I'm getting at.
excellent post - really pulled apart and highlighted his incompetence re: squad stance
Do you have a random fact to brighten up the day Cables? :-)
good point - i have neglected my duties today. You're lucky to be getting a response at all dropping my 2nd B. Anyway
Polar bears can eat as many as 86 penguins in a single sitting.
My conclusion from reading the interview is a simple one.
Fundamentally, Roland Duchâtelet doesn't see anything wrong with the way that club is being run. He thinks that a bit of tinkering is required to get the balance of the squad size right, but essentially he's happy with the performance of his management team. His comments about the criteria used to appoint the head coaches are particularly telling. He just doesn't view success and failure in the same way that we do. Just look at his defence of Fraeye's tenure.
We will never progress under this regime, as nothing will change.
Amidst all that interminable shite there's something in there that really reveals Roland not to be a football man. I know people have highlighted this quote for other reasons but it's this:
'let’s say you have a squad of 35 players which happens in the Championship - there are only 11 starting players. That means only one in three players are happy at the beginning of the game.'
Firstly, we're bottom, and we've spent the last two years flirting with the relegation spots. That means in general there's been around 20 other teams having a far more pleasant time of it than us. The conclusion you could draw from that is that if other teams have squads of 35 players and they've been doing better than us for the past two years then maybe it works Roland. Bournemouth had a squad of around 30 and won the league. Watford had around 40 players and Norwich had 35. These are all now Premier League teams. The problem is Roland applies business strategies to football problems.
He talks about how there are only 11 starting players, meaning 2 thirds of the squad are an under-utilised workforce and so are unhappy. As if he gives a shit about their happiness or knows anything about how to manage a football dressing room. What he really means is that he doesn't want to pay two thirds of the staff to not do anything on a Saturday, even though any manager worth his salt will rotate his team, keep his players motivated, bring players in to cover injury and use squad competition to increase performance. He just has completely zero understanding of what it is to challenge in a league of this nature. We can now see where Karel got his 'you only need 11 players' spiel from, which is interesting in itself as that's obviously the party line, but it means we're doomed to forever have squads made up of unready youth players and no depth or competition.
He's permanently going to tell us that they know what they're doing but it's knowledge coming from a microchips magnate and a competition lawyer whose only experience working in football is a series of colossal omnishambles and increasingly ridiculous PR gaffes. They're a bunch of wankers is what I'm getting at.
excellent post - really pulled apart and highlighted his incompetence re: squad stance
Do you have a random fact to brighten up the day Cables? :-)
good point - i have neglected my duties today. You're lucky to be getting a response at all dropping my 2nd B. Anyway
Polar bears can eat as many as 86 penguins in a single sitting.
I prefer trios......
Join me again tomorrow
They'd have to be bloody good swimmers then.
I'm no geographer, but I reckon there's a fair old distance from the Arctic to Antarctica....
Amidst all that interminable shite there's something in there that really reveals Roland not to be a football man. I know people have highlighted this quote for other reasons but it's this:
'let’s say you have a squad of 35 players which happens in the Championship - there are only 11 starting players. That means only one in three players are happy at the beginning of the game.'
Firstly, we're bottom, and we've spent the last two years flirting with the relegation spots. That means in general there's been around 20 other teams having a far more pleasant time of it than us. The conclusion you could draw from that is that if other teams have squads of 35 players and they've been doing better than us for the past two years then maybe it works Roland. Bournemouth had a squad of around 30 and won the league. Watford had around 40 players and Norwich had 35. These are all now Premier League teams. The problem is Roland applies business strategies to football problems.
He talks about how there are only 11 starting players, meaning 2 thirds of the squad are an under-utilised workforce and so are unhappy. As if he gives a shit about their happiness or knows anything about how to manage a football dressing room. What he really means is that he doesn't want to pay two thirds of the staff to not do anything on a Saturday, even though any manager worth his salt will rotate his team, keep his players motivated, bring players in to cover injury and use squad competition to increase performance. He just has completely zero understanding of what it is to challenge in a league of this nature. We can now see where Karel got his 'you only need 11 players' spiel from, which is interesting in itself as that's obviously the party line, but it means we're doomed to forever have squads made up of unready youth players and no depth or competition.
He's permanently going to tell us that they know what they're doing but it's knowledge coming from a microchips magnate and a competition lawyer whose only experience working in football is a series of colossal omnishambles and increasingly ridiculous PR gaffes. They're a bunch of wankers is what I'm getting at.
excellent post - really pulled apart and highlighted his incompetence re: squad stance
Do you have a random fact to brighten up the day Cables? :-)
good point - i have neglected my duties today. You're lucky to be getting a response at all dropping my 2nd B. Anyway
Polar bears can eat as many as 86 penguins in a single sitting.
Amidst all that interminable shite there's something in there that really reveals Roland not to be a football man. I know people have highlighted this quote for other reasons but it's this:
'let’s say you have a squad of 35 players which happens in the Championship - there are only 11 starting players. That means only one in three players are happy at the beginning of the game.'
Firstly, we're bottom, and we've spent the last two years flirting with the relegation spots. That means in general there's been around 20 other teams having a far more pleasant time of it than us. The conclusion you could draw from that is that if other teams have squads of 35 players and they've been doing better than us for the past two years then maybe it works Roland. Bournemouth had a squad of around 30 and won the league. Watford had around 40 players and Norwich had 35. These are all now Premier League teams. The problem is Roland applies business strategies to football problems.
He talks about how there are only 11 starting players, meaning 2 thirds of the squad are an under-utilised workforce and so are unhappy. As if he gives a shit about their happiness or knows anything about how to manage a football dressing room. What he really means is that he doesn't want to pay two thirds of the staff to not do anything on a Saturday, even though any manager worth his salt will rotate his team, keep his players motivated, bring players in to cover injury and use squad competition to increase performance. He just has completely zero understanding of what it is to challenge in a league of this nature. We can now see where Karel got his 'you only need 11 players' spiel from, which is interesting in itself as that's obviously the party line, but it means we're doomed to forever have squads made up of unready youth players and no depth or competition.
He's permanently going to tell us that they know what they're doing but it's knowledge coming from a microchips magnate and a competition lawyer whose only experience working in football is a series of colossal omnishambles and increasingly ridiculous PR gaffes. They're a bunch of wankers is what I'm getting at.
excellent post - really pulled apart and highlighted his incompetence re: squad stance
Do you have a random fact to brighten up the day Cables? :-)
good point - i have neglected my duties today. You're lucky to be getting a response at all dropping my 2nd B. Anyway
Polar bears can eat as many as 86 penguins in a single sitting.
I prefer trios......
Join me again tomorrow
They'd have to be bloody good swimmers then.
I'm no geographer, but I reckon there's a fair old distance from the Arctic to Antarctica....
Amidst all that interminable shite there's something in there that really reveals Roland not to be a football man. I know people have highlighted this quote for other reasons but it's this:
'let’s say you have a squad of 35 players which happens in the Championship - there are only 11 starting players. That means only one in three players are happy at the beginning of the game.'
Firstly, we're bottom, and we've spent the last two years flirting with the relegation spots. That means in general there's been around 20 other teams having a far more pleasant time of it than us. The conclusion you could draw from that is that if other teams have squads of 35 players and they've been doing better than us for the past two years then maybe it works Roland. Bournemouth had a squad of around 30 and won the league. Watford had around 40 players and Norwich had 35. These are all now Premier League teams. The problem is Roland applies business strategies to football problems.
He talks about how there are only 11 starting players, meaning 2 thirds of the squad are an under-utilised workforce and so are unhappy. As if he gives a shit about their happiness or knows anything about how to manage a football dressing room. What he really means is that he doesn't want to pay two thirds of the staff to not do anything on a Saturday, even though any manager worth his salt will rotate his team, keep his players motivated, bring players in to cover injury and use squad competition to increase performance. He just has completely zero understanding of what it is to challenge in a league of this nature. We can now see where Karel got his 'you only need 11 players' spiel from, which is interesting in itself as that's obviously the party line, but it means we're doomed to forever have squads made up of unready youth players and no depth or competition.
He's permanently going to tell us that they know what they're doing but it's knowledge coming from a microchips magnate and a competition lawyer whose only experience working in football is a series of colossal omnishambles and increasingly ridiculous PR gaffes. They're a bunch of wankers is what I'm getting at.
excellent post - really pulled apart and highlighted his incompetence re: squad stance
Do you have a random fact to brighten up the day Cables? :-)
good point - i have neglected my duties today. You're lucky to be getting a response at all dropping my 2nd B. Anyway
Polar bears can eat as many as 86 penguins in a single sitting.
I prefer trios......
Join me again tomorrow
They'd have to be bloody good swimmers then.
I'm no geographer, but I reckon there's a fair old distance from the Arctic to Antarctica....
On the internet so must be true - never question the fact master.
Actually, I'm going to publish a retraction and an apology to NornIrish. Upon closer inspection, and to my detriment I felt pressured to publish a fact that I panicked and didn't think it through. I have a good general knowledge, I know penguins only exist on the antarctic, not the arctic.
Someone must have given a polar bear a bunch of penguins and watched how many he ate, then put it on the internet.
It was a shit fact, I will return tomorrow with a much better one
Please tell me why the club after 5 transfer windows has failed to secure a single permanent transfer of a UK player directly from another UK club in the top four divisions of the English game.
Telling stat that sums up the mess that is our recruitment
Comments
I understood (but I'm willing to be corrected) that when he bought the club he was expecting FFP to be implemented. That being the case, I suppose there was an outside chance his ideology could have worked. I think that he's trying to get his head around how he can make it work without the FFP regs.
Anyway, this whole thing about 'we've made mistakes in the past' is cobblers, because as others have said, they continue to make them.
Listening to him, I can understand why we got Peeters, Luzon and Fraeye because of his philosophy regarding younger players and the academy, but he made the same mistake 3 times because they were all under prepared for the rigours of the Championship. Now maybe making the same mistake twice with Bob and Guy was just about acceptable possibly, doing it again with dear Karel was unforgivable. As was getting shot of some of our best players and recruiting crap. The guy just can't see beyond the bubble that is Belgium or his chums.
There's a saying that people buy from people. I've been reminded of that this week regarding a major purchase. Been sodded around by one muppet and bought from another who was utterly brilliant to deal with. I just think that if they actually came out and put their hands up and admitted they've cocked up, they may have bought themselves a bit of credit. But they continue to hide behind the same old 'We've made mistakes' comment and carry on making them. Plus Katy is just doing what she's told. I don't buy any of the chat about her being in charge and he doesn't stick his oar in. I suppose we should be grateful that we have Riga instead of Norbert Vinaigre though.
I fear for the club in a way I didn't when we were at Selhurst and I'm not sure why that is.
Ultimately he's totally underestimated the demands of the Championship and I really think he's bought the wrong club. I reckon that if he wanted to prove something, he should have invested in a top half of the table Conference club and built that up. All he's going to do with Charlton is take it down the drain.
The knock on is bad regarding future support. Thankfully I converted my son to an Addick. We tried with my grandson, he got to an age where he was interested in football and we went once with him and a little while later we went again and now he doesn't want to go. Thinks we're rubbish - he's not wrong. TBH we were a bit rubbish when I started supporting in the 60's, but it was a different sort of rubbish and those old enough will know what I mean. I've lost all interest in going, I feel totally disconnected from the place. My son is much the same. I used to get a bit excited about going but now if I think about it, it's just a drag.
Thanks Roland, that's what you've done for the family.
In order to win we mustn't under estimate Roland or over estimate our own position. We are engaged in a war of attrition that could play out over a number of years. We need to continue to build support amongst the fans, take on alternative views with humour and patience and guard against intolerance.
I'm a ST holder in the Upper West and the wearing of a black and white scarf, standing up during the anti-RD song etc. is still a minority view. The vast majority of the West stand still buy food, don't join the protests etc.
I didn't plan to go to the game tomorrow but having seen Roland's comments I'll make the 200 mile round trip once again for the protest.
Under Duchatelet we will only be Charlton Academy FC.
Or, easier.......
BUMP.
1. The first meeting of the Valley Party attracted 9 people. Nine. Not 900, not 90, but 9.
2. Yet four months later, three times as many people voted for the Valley party as were making the trip to Selhurst for games.
3. Yet again, in the ghastly lounge at Selhurst, even after the election, during the following season, I met people claiming to be Charlton fans who argued that we should stay at Selhurst.
Overall what am I suggesting here? Well mainly just another angle on @LoOkOuT 's excellent points, not to mention @Weegie Addick 's earlier. But I would assert that the West Stand is no more a barometer than this site. We are like every football club fanbase; we are made up of different demographics, and different attitudes to football, which don't always match what you'd expect from the demographics. Yes the West Stand is the last part of the stadium where you will expect the protest to be widely supported. That said,, the last game I was at, against Wolves, when I was standing up cos I wanted them out, I clearly saw people in the directors box doing the same thing, more than once. I was not mistaken, and it was several people, perhaps 5-6.
Actually I am sure that @Airman Brown will confirm, I and others in the Trust have often in the last two years cautioned him that "the view from the West" is very different to his, and we had to take that view into account. So if we now seem to be very closely aligned with his views now, you can be sure that it is after a great deal of thought and of work canvassing and listening. If you worry we'd succumb to "groupthink" you don't know the people involved.
on the field - rush through inexperienced but cheap young players & put them in situations way above their ability level too soon.
off the field - rush through inexperienced but cheap young managers & put them in situations way above their ability level too soon.
Case in point. He said....
It was an email which he sent and it read as follows ‘can we talk about an investment opportunity in Charlton’. Now, what is an investment opportunity? Maybe they want to invest in a new billboard or I don’t know.
“I diverted this email to my CEO to handle it. It is only five or six months later it became clear that what he wanted to talk about was a takeover of the club.
Well, why didn't your illustrious CEO reply with a question "what exactly is the investment you are proposing" rather than waiting 6 months to find out it was a takeover proposal. After all, this was coming from Peter Varney not some Joe Bloggs on the street.
Like I said, bullshit.
Depressing read.
Like where the hell is a girl to find the Reply button in an email she is reading, while busy multi-tasking on more important things, like, well, you know, important stuff, like, em, eh, like, maybe, eh, what scarf to wear this week?
Polar bears can eat as many as 86 penguins in a single sitting.
I prefer trios......
Join me again tomorrow
Fundamentally, Roland Duchâtelet doesn't see anything wrong with the way that club is being run. He thinks that a bit of tinkering is required to get the balance of the squad size right, but essentially he's happy with the performance of his management team. His comments about the criteria used to appoint the head coaches are particularly telling. He just doesn't view success and failure in the same way that we do. Just look at his defence of Fraeye's tenure.
We will never progress under this regime, as nothing will change.
I'm no geographer, but I reckon there's a fair old distance from the Arctic to Antarctica....
On the internet so must be true - never question the fact master.
Someone must have given a polar bear a bunch of penguins and watched how many he ate, then put it on the internet.
It was a shit fact, I will return tomorrow with a much better one
CabblesCablesCabesCabs...