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

New SLP Articles: Roland didn't tell Powell to pick players & FFP changes are a disaster

13567

Comments

  • Options
    colin1961 said:

    cabbles said:

    “I never read that he [Powell] said that,” responded Duchatelet. “But if he did, it is certainly wrong.

    First line and a lie

    “I did discuss on occasions about players - there were also problems at the time with key ones who wanted to leave, like Yann Kermorgant.

    Another lie. I believe Powell over RD any day, and Powell said Yann was having to hold on for the right deal. We still don't know to this day if the deal tabled to Yann was good enough or acceptable to him to stay. But what we do know is he wanted to stay.

    This guy is just a tosser, through and through.

    We all know he never told Powell to pick players Alex Dyer told us that after Powell left ...... Yann chose the money instead of signing the new deal , think what people need to remember is the Bournemouth deal was on the table before RD took over ....as Powell said the old owners had already said they were not going to offer Yann or Stephens new deals

    Be interesting next week if he gets treated like Parker will do tomorrow ??
    Funny, "We all know" actually seems to mean "I think" in this case. Did you ever learn the English language Colin?
  • Options
    cafcfan said:

    comes across as a lying twat, but his point on FFP is a valid one.

    It is a fair point that he thought FFP would mean other clubs couldn't spend more than they earn and that would help us.

    But when the FFP rules changed Roland made no attempt to change his business plan. He can't just go on as he did before and moan that it's not fair.

    He bought the wrong club.
    I'm in two minds about FFP. On the one hand it's nice for us fans if there's a level playing field, it gives us lesser mortals a scintilla of hope.

    On the other hand - and let's use the restaurant analogy (again):

    One restaurant owner spends a fortune making his restaurant a very pleasant place to be; opens 7 days a week so that people can ring in to book a table; stocks up his cellar with the best wine; buys the best local produce; employs a Michelin-starred chef; top quality waiters; a qualified Sommelier; a Maître d' that knows what the hell they are doing; and has a maximum score under the local council's food hygenine scheme and the all-important linen tablecloths and napkins.

    Another has a great venue. But he spends no money on decent food and drink; no one ever answers the phone or looks at emails; the chef is just out of college; the waiters don't speak English and don't even unscrew the top off the wine, let alone let it breathe or decant it; the food is so-so; the Maître d' used to be a paralegal and has no relevant skills; the table cloths are plastic while the napkins are paper serviettes and there are mouse droppings everywhere.

    Which one deserves (and will) succeed?
    Trouble is, under the current rules both fail. One collapses under a mountain of debt and the other withers away from lack of custom.

    Duchatelet makes a fair point about the lunatic finances of English football but he has failed to adapt his original plan to the new situation. He doesn't want to be the first example, but will end up being the second instead.
  • Options
    edited February 2016
    MrLargo said:

    Dansk_Red said:

    Begs the question who selected the head coaches, if he left the management of the club to KM, or is it just another lie?

    Don't think it's even worth analysing it that closely. RD and KM contradict each other all the time - the truth is presumably somewhere halfway between Roland's lies and Katrien's lies.

    I suspect Katrien was given responsibility for recruiting coaches, with assistance from Roland, probably something like this:

    RD: Katrien, I'm giving you full responsibility for selecting our new head coach. Pick anyone you like from the following shortlist -

    1. Karel Fraeye
    2. Mr K Fraeye
    3. Fraeye K, Esq
    What's for sure is that Katrien had zero input on appointing Bob Peeters as manager. She was literally in tears when she was told it was happening. But, with regards to the idea to appoint the Upjest guy as our manager a month ago, I suspect (and this is simply a guess) that she actually played a big part in ensuring that it didn't happen and that Riga came back.

  • Options
    It must be tough for poor ickle Uncle Roly, no-one loves him (barring Katrien), not the fans, not the media, not the clubs that don't want his version of FFP and even those who (he thinks) seem to share his views.....

    “All the other clubs who are more in line with our philosophy - that we want to pay a player not a money game but a football game, to show we have better coaches and an academy from a supporting side - they come and they buy away our players.

    “That’s not fair. The Championship is anything but fair play. Due to this change in rule FFP isn’t there anymore in practise.”


    A cynic, and lucky none of us would ever be such a thing, might think he expected the footballing universe to revolve around him, and is a bit miffed with reality. I half expect him to threaten to take his ball and....
  • Options

    Sounds to me like he is having second thoughts about staying involved. I cannot see him wanting to stick around if we get relegated.

    That's how I read it too.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Missed It said:

    cafcfan said:

    comes across as a lying twat, but his point on FFP is a valid one.

    It is a fair point that he thought FFP would mean other clubs couldn't spend more than they earn and that would help us.

    But when the FFP rules changed Roland made no attempt to change his business plan. He can't just go on as he did before and moan that it's not fair.

    He bought the wrong club.
    I'm in two minds about FFP. On the one hand it's nice for us fans if there's a level playing field, it gives us lesser mortals a scintilla of hope.

    On the other hand - and let's use the restaurant analogy (again):

    One restaurant owner spends a fortune making his restaurant a very pleasant place to be; opens 7 days a week so that people can ring in to book a table; stocks up his cellar with the best wine; buys the best local produce; employs a Michelin-starred chef; top quality waiters; a qualified Sommelier; a Maître d' that knows what the hell they are doing; and has a maximum score under the local council's food hygenine scheme and the all-important linen tablecloths and napkins.

    Another has a great venue. But he spends no money on decent food and drink; no one ever answers the phone or looks at emails; the chef is just out of college; the waiters don't speak English and don't even unscrew the top off the wine, let alone let it breathe or decant it; the food is so-so; the Maître d' used to be a paralegal and has no relevant skills; the table cloths are plastic while the napkins are paper serviettes and there are mouse droppings everywhere.

    Which one deserves (and will) succeed?
    Trouble is, under the current rules both fail. One collapses under a mountain of debt and the other withers away from lack of custom.

    Duchatelet makes a fair point about the lunatic finances of English football but he has failed to adapt his original plan to the new situation. He doesn't want to be the first example, but will end up being the second instead.
    I don't accept the debt argument in its entirety. Even in normal businesses, the innovators often fail and someone else or a rival comes along, picks up the pieces and makes a success of it. (By way of example, we've had 8 track vs 4 track cassettes; Betamax vs VHS; and LCD vs Plasma TVs; HD DVD vs Blue-ray and now regular hard drives vs SSDs vs cloud vs streaming.)
    Take building a power station: obviously there's huge amounts of up front funding with no income whatsoever for maybe a decade or so. But still some take the risk.
    Making progress is all about risk and inevitably some fail spectacularly. So we had the comedy Sinclair C5, but now we've got fantastic vehicles like the Tesla range and the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV with more to come.

    If individuals want to risk their money on the promise of getting to the Premier League, why should anyone stop them?

    What is wrong IMO is the lack of balance caused by the TV deals.
  • Options
    Everything coming from the club will be bullshit and counter to the bad press they are receiving,

    The geezer looks like a man who is either incapable of showing emotions or is a pathological liar who somehow has a really high intelligence and made big cash and can't stop trying to be cleverer than everyone else
  • Options
    The FFP stuff is the more important. He clearly thought in 2013-14 that the Football League would enforce it's own rules and a club like ours could prosper with a European style investment model. Not an unreasonable assumption. QPR ought for instance to have been relegated through several tiers based on the losses they posted. Instead of taking action though the FL threw the towel in.

    Interesting to think where this change by the Football League leaves us re: RD being the owner. Will he sell rather than put more money in? Or will he still want to have a UK club in his roster, particularly one based in London?

    Incidentally, Midtjylland did ok yesterday........On the Today Programme they carried a piece about them saying they had a Head Coach and the players brought into the club were pre-selected via a statistical analysis.
  • Options
    kentred2 said:

    Agreed Henry and there is no sign of him changing his business plan. Just him hoping the ffp rules change. And kermogant wanting to leave? Is that not a complete lie?

    If FFP was in place would that really mean Charlton under these clowns would be competitive? Unlikely
    Am I right in thinking he wasn't actually anywhere near the previous FFP limit in any case, so no wonder we're even further adrift now!
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    cafcfan said:

    comes across as a lying twat, but his point on FFP is a valid one.

    It is a fair point that he thought FFP would mean other clubs couldn't spend more than they earn and that would help us.

    But when the FFP rules changed Roland made no attempt to change his business plan. He can't just go on as he did before and moan that it's not fair.

    He bought the wrong club.
    I'm in two minds about FFP. On the one hand it's nice for us fans if there's a level playing field, it gives us lesser mortals a scintilla of hope.

    On the other hand - and let's use the restaurant analogy (again):

    One restaurant owner spends a fortune making his restaurant a very pleasant place to be; opens 7 days a week so that people can ring in to book a table; stocks up his cellar with the best wine; buys the best local produce; employs a Michelin-starred chef; top quality waiters; a qualified Sommelier; a Maître d' that knows what the hell they are doing; and has a maximum score under the local council's food hygenine scheme and the all-important linen tablecloths and napkins.

    Another has a great venue. But he spends no money on decent food and drink; no one ever answers the phone or looks at emails; the chef is just out of college; the waiters don't speak English and don't even unscrew the top off the wine, let alone let it breathe or decant it; the food is so-so; the Maître d' used to be a paralegal and has no relevant skills; the table cloths are plastic while the napkins are paper serviettes and there are mouse droppings everywhere.

    Which one deserves (and will) succeed?
    Liked this, but wanted to "LOL" it as well :smile:
  • Options
    colin1961 said:

    cabbles said:

    “I never read that he [Powell] said that,” responded Duchatelet. “But if he did, it is certainly wrong.

    First line and a lie

    “I did discuss on occasions about players - there were also problems at the time with key ones who wanted to leave, like Yann Kermorgant.

    Another lie. I believe Powell over RD any day, and Powell said Yann was having to hold on for the right deal. We still don't know to this day if the deal tabled to Yann was good enough or acceptable to him to stay. But what we do know is he wanted to stay.

    This guy is just a tosser, through and through.

    We all know he never told Powell to pick players Alex Dyer told us that after Powell left ...... Yann chose the money instead of signing the new deal , think what people need to remember is the Bournemouth deal was on the table before RD took over ....as Powell said the old owners had already said they were not going to offer Yann or Stephens new deals

    Be interesting next week if he gets treated like Parker will do tomorrow ??
    What a strange world you inhabit.
  • Options
    cafcfan said:



    I don't accept the debt argument in its entirety. Even in normal businesses, the innovators often fail and someone else or a rival comes along, picks up the pieces and makes a success of it. (By way of example, we've had 8 track vs 4 track cassettes; Betamax vs VHS; and LCD vs Plasma TVs; HD DVD vs Blue-ray and now regular hard drives vs SSDs vs cloud vs streaming.)
    Take building a power station: obviously there's huge amounts of up front funding with no income whatsoever for maybe a decade or so. But still some take the risk.
    Making progress is all about risk and inevitably some fail spectacularly. So we had the comedy Sinclair C5, but now we've got fantastic vehicles like the Tesla range and the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV with more to come.

    If individuals want to risk their money on the promise of getting to the Premier League, why should anyone stop them?

    What is wrong IMO is the lack of balance caused by the TV deals.

    While this is true for technology lack of regulation is impossible for many industries.

    If banks were not regulated, no one would ever risk saving and we would have to get used to a cash only society. (As nearly happened in 2008 until our hapless government came to the rescue!)

    Football is already highly regulated in a way that other industries are not. Players cannot switch employers at will. Contracts and transfer fees are controlled and scrutinised in ways that would be illegal in many circumstances. But without these rules the game we know would be unrecognisable.

    FFP would prevent players being paid for with borrowed money and ensure they genuinely "belonged" to a club. I think this is in the same spirit as the regulations which already exist to prevent ringers.
  • Options

    I have a certain amount of sympathy with RD on the FFP issue, as it has to be remembered that the club is still losing money. While lots of daft decisions have been made on and off the pitch, even if we were well run we'd still be losing money.

    We're competing with

    a) clubs with parachute money
    b) clubs with owners prepared to spend significant sums of money
    c) clubs prepared to gamble on promotion with money they don't have

    The flaw of his ownership is not that he hasn't spent enough, but rather he's spent his money terribly, on dreadful transfer and head coach decisions

    True. But it is what it is now, whether he/we likes it or not. That's the rules of the game and if he doesn't like it, there's an offer to buy the club waiting for him to pick up.
  • Options
    It would be nice to think that with the FFP not delivering as RD planned and with us floundering towards League One, he might decide to chuck it all in as a bad job.
    It's not really working for all parties, and whilst I'm sure Roland will make sure he walks away with something from his inspirational time with us, he may well be beginning to consider that the climate in the UK is not right for his football vision.
    We can but hope and pray..
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!