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

Gliksten or Duchâtelet

Who is the worst owner?

Without a shadow of a doubt it is Giksten

After the war were a top team in the country, however with little or no investment , the club slowly sunk until it became an big embarrassment, living off memories of large crowds of up to 75,000 for a cup match, on a level with the Arsenal.

Duchatelet buying Charlton is just an experiment, one more club to add to his collection. A toy to sell when he gets bored . My opinion if the club regains promotion back to the Championship , as a business man he could sell and recoup all or most of his money.

Being an awkward bastard , he could well hang on and on.

Well who knows!

Do you?
(Answers on a postcard to Belgium)
+
«1

Comments

  • Options
    Stanley or Michael?
  • Options
    Can we please just buy a season ticket and give Roland a chance?

    To be the worst owner ever!
  • Options
    vffvff
    edited July 2016
    The Duchatelet ownership feels much much worse due to the wasted & shattered potential broken on wilful stupidity, arrogance and ignorance. Duchatelet has the funds but chooses to have a inept CEO and run a strategy that runs counter to how a successful football club actually runs. His CEO regulary & routinely insults the supporters.

    The lowest league finish in the clubs history is entirely feasible under Duchatelet with the current gaps in the team and a central defence that involves Roger Johnson.

    All this whilst having no accountability for any of the bad decisions made, and loading the club with high levels of debt that he charges 3% interest on. All this while blithely ignoring the evidence of his eyes of the failure of his strategy.
  • Options
    edited July 2016
    I was...

    image

    For a second there, but no, Stig's nailed it.
  • Options
    What a question. First of all Gliksten was a real fan albeit one with very limited ambition.
    We were stagnating badly under him and who knows where we would have ended up if he stayed. Equally he was part of the equation that led us to leave the valley. Alan Mullery told him if he recruited a couple of players he could get us up. His response was, can we afford to go up Alan. Hung Andy Nelson out to dry and he was the only Chairman that Bob Stokoe did not send a Xmas card to. So the only thing going for Gliksten was that he was a fan; now I have to think of a good thing to say about Roly......Hmmm.
  • Options
    Let's see, The Gliksteins (you didn't specify which of the three) between them took us from the third tier to the top tier with consecutive top four finishes, two fa cup finals, war cup finals, enlarged the Valley, broke transfer records (both selling and buying of players), got the highest attendance records in the top and second tier, which have never been bettered (maybe third also, I can't be bothered to look it up) and eventually when they left the club it was playing in a division higher than when they took ownership five decades before. Admittedly there were twenty five years of mediocrity but you may forgive that when weighed up against the other twenty five years.

    The current owners bought a second tier team and got it relegated achieving nothing of note other than reducing the fan base, the demonstrations......sorry I can't be bothered to list their multiple failings. I find it hard to find a single positive.

    If you had compared Staprix to Sunley's ownership there may have been more debate.

  • Options
    Things are bad, no doubt, but I wonder if (ironically) things like the Internet and forums like this. I don't have to be with friends/family to discuss Charlton - I just need my mobile phone. I wonder if this constant, non-stop, pouring over every single aspect of the club and expecting and then dissecting every single news story makes things much worse now than they ever have been.

    Not sure if I explained myself well there.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    The Gliksteins took Charlton to successive promotions, won the FA Cup, put Charlton in a position where they could bid for the best player in the world (Stanley Matthews) and, arguably made Charlton, for a short period of time, one of the best teams in Europe.

    Duchatelet is a tit.
  • Options
    Or... which eye would you like to have poked out?
  • Options
    I started supporting Charlton during the 1970's so I remember the final Michael Glikstein years. I think it would be fare to say he lacked ambition for the club but also I think he did try to balance the books as well. If memory serves me, (I'm sure there are better people on here to correct me if I'm wrong), Michael Glikstein inherited the club at a young age and his heart wasn't really in it like his fathers was.
    I don't think you really can compare the two and their way of running the club but if pressed I would say the Glikstein's as they were a dynasty and at some point real Charlton fans with real ambitions but everything looks better looking back 30/40 years. I also think Duchatelet would like success but we will never see what we perceive to be success as there is obviously different versions of success in the UK and Belgian.
  • Options
    The later Gliksten era post 1949 was worse - in my view. The reasonable seasons (1958, 1964, 1969, 1975) were exceptions that were never followed through and managers were always let down. Absolutely no drive. No attempt to communicate with the fans. Rhubarbing away about the great days of the 30's whilst proposing a move to Milton Keynes. Then selling the club to.........
  • Options
    Peter_G said:

    I'm old, but not old enough to recall the Stanley and Albert Gliksten era; but history shows they were fantastic owners, paying off all the club debt when they took it over, appointing the brilliant Jimmy Seed, and giving him money to invest in players. Michael Gliksten presided over the club between the 60's and the 80's and during that time I developed quite a strong dislike for him. There were some good years at the end of the 60's, but managers came and went (albeit without the frequency we have recently seen), the team yo-yo'd between divs 2 & 3, and the Valley decayed. It really decayed! I was glad to see the back of him when he sold to Mark Hulyer. which of course is another story.

    RD has been disastrous, but not for the lack of money which he has invested in the team, the training ground etc. I genuinely believe his heart is in the right place, but he has been far too dogmatic by keeping the ridiculous KM in her job, and only giving up on the network 'experiment' when it was far too late. I haven't yet developed the same dislike for him as I did for MG, and I hope that Roland gets it right. It's not the same hope that most of you have -- that he sells up tout suite, although that might be a welcome move, but I am fearful about who any buyer be. RD doesn't seem to want to move us away from the Valley, and he still has the resources to get us back to a better level.

    Duchâtelet has not given up on his experiment in any way whatsoever, mark my words!
  • Options
    RD's heart is in the right place? What planet have you been living on? He might have ambition but not for on the field success which is what most of us would like to see an owner at least try for!
  • Options
    redman said:

    RD's heart is in the right place? What planet have you been living on? He might have ambition but not for on the field success which is what most of us would like to see an owner at least try for!

    Ok, that was over-generous of me. But I don't believe he has been on a mission to deliberately destroy the club, despite almost achieving it. He is clearly not driven by a love for the Addicks, but he is in that category of a great many football club owners who are just egotists who think they can replicate their own business success with a football club. He has put millions of his own cash into the club and some of that has been well spent: on the training ground; the pitch and some (obviously not all) players. I share your desire for a new owner that would strive for on field success, but that seems somewhat elusive.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options

    Gliksten senior had the passion for the club. His son did not share the passion. Out of a family sense of duty he kept the club going. He or more correctly his company regularly picked up the tab.

    He did regularly sell players to finance the club but did invariably reinvest a portion on strengthening the squad with two or three modest additions. He also if threatened with relegation found a few quid to bring in one or two to help the fight.

    Famously both Holton and then Firmani came in as veteran players and provided the leadership to secure safety. Equally we were not afraid to bring in decent managers like Frank Hill & Bob Stokoe

    His tenure did end badly. He did explore taking the club to Milton Keynes because he believed there were not enough supporters who cared, if I recall correctly crowds rarely exceeded 8,000 and he was trying to get out from under the financial commitment his family had made for over 30yrs.

    He would have clearly profited from the sale of The Valley.

    He made no pretence about that but no one had the appetite and/ or the money to take the club off his hands until Huyler simply because there was no "business proposition" or "revenue opportunity" in buying football clubs other than a successful team would generate larger attendances and greater revenue on the gate.

    The Hulyer agreement was reported as being extremely advantageous to Gliksten but Hulyer never had the real money to make it work. Hulyer was badly let down by others who had also originally committed to the venture. It cost him a very great deal of money.

    It is fair to say Gliksten had no appetite beyond keeping the club going out of respect to his father. The nature of any business proposition for him, at a time when the industry was very different, was no more than that.

    To suggest a comparison of such tenure to a specific Belgian Corporate entry to the modern UK football industry, where elite clubs have significant media revenues at their disposal is beyond bizarre.

    Sometimes you really do wish people would engage their brain before reaching for the keyboard.

    As ever @Grapevine49 is bang on the money.

    All I would add is that Michael Gliksten became Chairman at 23, yes 23, when his father passed away in 1962.

    Hardly surprising that he got the odd thing wrong in the circumstances.
  • Options

    Duchatelet by a mile, I started supporting Charlton in 1950 so missed our best years, the main problem over the years with the Gliksten family was they never invested in the ground, we were one of the last teams to have floodlights, midweek games were played Thursday afternoons as Thursday was early closing day for the shops, but for all of that, they cared about the club, and when Michael Gliksten sold the club to Mark Hulyer he kept the ground without that we would not have been able to move back.
    Since the day Duchatelet bought the club we have gone backwards he has upset the vast majority of supporters, has put a CEO in that does not have a clue about football and seems to go out of her way to make the club a shambles.

    The floodlights.

    Classic lack of ambition.

    Crystal Palace got theirs installed the same year as us - and opened them with an evening friendly vs Real Madrid. Not sue if we did anything like that......
  • Options
    Educational thread this one. Duchatelet is conclusively evidenced as being a far worse owner than Glickstein. Its by a clear knockout, no contest.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!