The Club put in brand new red seats in certain areas of the ground, Photos of the 1998 Play Off win outside the Covered End plus a general tidy up of the Valley.
Did anyone get consulted back then about these changes or did they just do it with the minimum of fuss?
This was done by this regime, so why change tact now and look to start pleasing fans, when just do, what you did back then.
Much like the spring clean, new seats and other bits and bobs in close season last year.
But the JS stand is more emotive because it's named after the only manager to have won anything for us - so involving family was sensible
No it wasn't at all. It was a cynical attempt to create good PR. It should be offensive to anyone who has any sense of history of our club.
I have on occassions found your input interesting but your refusal to acknowledge the obvious is tedious I am afraid to say.
Sorry you feel that way - but I guarantee there would have been people say words to the effect of "Why didn't the club involve the family since they were the ones who raised it" so either way would lead to frustrations.
You seem to be missing the point of why people think this is a cock up by the club. Yes the club should consult the family and if they didn't that would be justifiable reason to slag them off. However that isn't the real problem with this saga. The fact that the club made a big public song and dance about simply fixing a sign in a desperate bid for good publicity before anything has actually happened is the complaint. If they had just gone about it and replaced the sign without the pathetic PR attempt then it would have been a well done job by the club and those involved, even if the family chose not to be involved and publicly stated as such. Save the PR for after it's been done. At least the club wouldn't have again scored a public PR own goal and even if the sign does get done it's too late, they've managed to cock up something as simple as that with their desperation and overall ineptitude. .
Swisdom is an intelligent bloke. He doesn't miss the point. He just isn't listening, the same as anyone else with a financial interest.
I don't go along with the financial interest point that keeps being thrown at Swisdom but he does appear to always ignore the particular point that I and others have made. As he has done again.
What point am I ignoring? That this was nothing more than a pr exercise by the club? That's because I don't believe it was. They were trying to put some information out there that was positive and show they taken fans comments on board and were working with Jim/James.
That's just the way I see it. My opinion. No more than that. Can't believe I'm getting so much heat for something which is my opinion.
The Club put in brand new red seats in certain areas of the ground, Photos of the 1998 Play Off win outside the Covered End plus a general tidy up of the Valley.
Did anyone get consulted back then about these changes or did they just do it with the minimum of fuss?
This was done by this regime, so why change tact now and look to start pleasing fans, when just do, what you did back then.
Much like the spring clean, new seats and other bits and bobs in close season last year.
But the JS stand is more emotive because it's named after the only manager to have won anything for us - so involving family was sensible
No it wasn't at all. It was a cynical attempt to create good PR. It should be offensive to anyone who has any sense of history of our club.
I have on occassions found your input interesting but your refusal to acknowledge the obvious is tedious I am afraid to say.
Sorry you feel that way - but I guarantee there would have been people say words to the effect of "Why didn't the club involve the family since they were the ones who raised it" so either way would lead to frustrations.
You seem to be missing the point of why people think this is a cock up by the club. Yes the club should consult the family and if they didn't that would be justifiable reason to slag them off. However that isn't the real problem with this saga. The fact that the club made a big public song and dance about simply fixing a sign in a desperate bid for good publicity before anything has actually happened is the complaint. If they had just gone about it and replaced the sign without the pathetic PR attempt then it would have been a well done job by the club and those involved, even if the family chose not to be involved and publicly stated as such. Save the PR for after it's been done. At least the club wouldn't have again scored a public PR own goal and even if the sign does get done it's too late, they've managed to cock up something as simple as that with their desperation and overall ineptitude. .
Swisdom is an intelligent bloke. He doesn't miss the point. He just isn't listening, the same as anyone else with a financial interest.
I don't go along with the financial interest point that keeps being thrown at Swisdom but he does appear to always ignore the particular point that I and others have made. As he has done again.
What point am I ignoring? That this was nothing more than a pr exercise by the club? That's because I don't believe it was. They were trying to put some information out there that was positive and show they taken fans comments on board and were working with Jim/James.
That's just the way I see it. My opinion. No more than that. Can't believe I'm getting so much heat for something which is my opinion.
When there is a history of not listening to fan comments, it verges beyond parody when such fuss is made over a straight-forward task.
What you've described is literally the definition of a PR stunt.
Let's be sensible. Like most have said, all other companies would have waited until the job was done before announcing it. The fact that they announced it alongside a quote praising themselves shows us their real intentions. They really can't help themselves.
Well done Jim. I agree with your stance and it could have been so easy for the club to have got this right. Yet again they fail.
The reason past sponsors names still appear at the Valley is that the Club have failed to replace them, and their thinking is 'better to leave them in place rather than make it patently obvious that we have been unable to source replacement sponsors'.
I've read this entire thread (welcome @jdmotion good to have you on board). I just have a few comments to make, the regime must be happy (i presume someone there reads this forum and reports back) that they seem to be turning fans against each other on such a simple 'project'. All they had to do is just repaint the sign and say nothing, but instead they make a song and dance about it. Its only a sign (no disrespect to Jimmy Seed) and could have been repaired in a matter of days. I don't understand the argument with @Swisdom either, his company does some work for CACT as far as I can make out and he does 'call out' the regime as well. None of us (apart from a few) are happy with the regime, but it seems to me that the more in-fighting on forums and between different forums is 'ramping up' and that old saying 'divide and rule' is beginning to enter my head as the regimes plan. I try to take an objective view on life nowadays, for obvious reasons, and I want this mob gone as much as anyone, but arguing among ourselves is futile. I hope and pray that we as a collective, across all forums and threads, can tolerate others point of view, it would not be human nature if we all agreed on everything, but lets not let this sign and hence the regime turn us against each other. If we do then they may have won.
I hope I haven't spoken out of turn and my intention is not to upset anyone, I'm just asking for tolerance, if we show that we wont be defeated.
Great idea Sue, why should the club's most successful manager have a stand named after him anyway? Bet he didn't even have an 'access all lounges' pass.
Plus, 'set the wheels in motion'? THEY'RE PAINTING A SIGN!
What a detestable thing to suggest. Words (almost) fail me. I would seriously question whether she is a Charlton supporter at all. Her predilection for the freebies she enjoys seems more important to her than the history of the Club. As Andy Warhol once said, everyone will enjoy 15 minutes of fame. Well Mrs 'Perks', your husband, off whose coat tails you hang, will no doubt be retiring in the not too distant future, and you will return to the obscurity from whence you came.
Difficult to ignore her when she says something so inflammatory.
Bear in mind this isn't an ordinary 'supporter'.
This is a woman that represents Charlton at board level in grounds around the country as well as at The Valley. She is a representative of Charlton in company with her husband who is a senior official at the club.
The fact that she is allowed to speak out as she does is truly unbelievable!!
Unfortunately it's not just her. "Others" have mentioned renaming the stand elsewhere.
Why? Are they really that dense.
And to suggest that refusing the clubs request was "impolite". Just what planet does she live on? she clearly does not understand why people are so upset and annoyed. She doesn't have to agree with them, but at least try to understand why they might have the arsehole.
Sue Parkes is a ponce of the highest order, I know it pisses them off taking screenshots from SE7 Valiants on Facebook, but I will continue to do it - her bullshit & idiotic views need to be exposed to the wider Charlton fanbase.
Chris Parkes is a true Charlton man having worked here for so long, but his wife & this regime will see his legacy tarnished
Sue seems to not only want to enjoy some power and influence and the trappings that go with it, but typically expects deference from others. Echoes of plebgate. The club ought to honour Seed whatever, and need not have the blessing of any fan group or indeed relative in order to do it, although the family blessing would be lovely. Sue seems to be saying that the club is doing an enormous favour on this, and the family ought to be grateful like Oliver Twist with his gruel, and if not, then the sign should not go ahead in being restored. I am assuming Sue has an attitude similar to Katrien and Keohane on this.
As for Swisdom and CACT. It looks to me that the CACT is being used and exploited in a similar way to target20k, and I would be in support of action by fans to educate the wider community in the upcoming Football in Business event. If the CACT is doing a good job an awards event makes no difference to them, but an award that this regime wrongly claims the credit for certainly makes a difference to me and some other fans too. I have plenty of time for Jason Morgan but sometimes there are bigger issues.
Difficult to ignore her when she says something so inflammatory.
Bear in mind this isn't an ordinary 'supporter'.
This is a woman that represents Charlton at board level in grounds around the country as well as at The Valley. She is a representative of Charlton in company with her husband who is a senior official at the club.
The fact that she is allowed to speak out as she does is truly unbelievable!!
That is what worries me too. The AFCW people visited the Valley boardoom with open minds, hoping to learn directly from Meire herself what the vision is for the CAFC relationship with fans, which is so different to that of AFCW's. What they actually got was a bucket-load of Sue Parkes, saying all the stuff we have already read about from her, and pretty vociferously too.
I understand the AFCW guys managed to filter out all that sound and fury and reach their own conclusions, but it apparently had some effect at Walsall. So while it would be best to just ignore her, I worry about the effect she is having on other clubs' perceptions.
Sue Perks suggesting that maybe the club should rename the Jimmy Seed stand after recent developments, she's an absolute piece of work this woman
She has no real influence or power. Treat her like a mosquito bite. Ignore her and she'll go away soon enough.
Problem is, she won't. And by her own admission she is one of the faces of the club visiting directors see, so she can do damage.
In my opinion this sort of person thrives on attention. She creates a stir with crass comments and then has something to talk to those she (for some reason) looks up to. Take that away and her power diminishes. She may still be pysically around but her ability to converse in key fan issues will be diminished along with any influence she thinks she has.
Re your second point - you're right - meeting other teams board members gives her the ability to do damage. But I'd suggest the damage she's routinely does is far greater to her reputation and the regime, and for the most part strengthen CARD's aim of ridding the club of Roland and Co.
Personally I'd suggest we continue to focus efforts on media and fans of other clubs. The more we continue to mobilise and support our cause, the closer we are to driving them out of the club.
The reason past sponsors names still appear at the Valley is that the Club have failed to replace them, and their thinking is 'better to leave them in place rather than make it patently obvious that we have been unable to source replacement sponsors'.
In that case, I wonder if as part of the campaign to force them out, could we encourage any of these businesses to insist that their legacy-advertising is removed. It would be quite a coup if one or more of them wrote to the club stating that as the club no longer reflects their brand the continued association with their name could be damaging to their business. Anyone got any good contacts?
I've not been one to comment on Sue Parkes before. I don't know her personally and always took the view that as she wasn't a club official, if she wanted to comment on another forum, that's her business and not something I should get too bothered about. That said, I've taken interest in the increasing amount of things she's been quoted as saying (frankly, it's hard to avoid them), purely from the point that many of them seem so preposterous. The more she's stuck her head above the parapet, the more I've felt like shooting. It's got to the point where I can't ignore this crass individual any more.
I don't believe that that the comment about renaming the stand is a serious suggestion. It comes across as a juvenile retort from someone who's been stung. It's not a properly thought out proposal, it's a side swipe at Jim Dutton. But of course the point of naming the stand is not to honour Jim, it's to honour his grandfather; the greatest manager our club has ever had. To dishonour Jimmy Seed by renaming the stand, may seem to Sue like a simple way to get back at his grandson, but it would in reality be a huge dishonour to Charlton Athletic Football Club. I expect that when she thinks about what she's said, she'll understand the flawed-logic. Then again, she comes across as a person with more opinions than brain cells, so maybe not.
Talking of juvenile retorts, here's one of my own: I sincerely hope that when this regime finally leaves, the new owners forcibly remove Sue Perks snout from the trough.
What she doesn't seem to understand is that the Stand was named after Jimmy Seed in recognition of what he achieved for Charlton Athletic and it was the clubs way of finally saying thank you to him. The club was grateful to him NOT as she puts it his family should be grateful to the club.
Her comment shows a complete lack of understanding and respect.
Also I don'y buy in to the belief that Mr Parkes is not of the same views of Mrs Parkes, because if that were the case he could (and should) very well put out a disclaimer.
Of course she is entitled to a personal view but some of her comments are inflammatory and as she has intimated and witnessed by others, a platform to air these views as the clubs official one. Then surly if the club secretary does not agree it should be stated publicly.
Difficult to ignore her when she says something so inflammatory.
Bear in mind this isn't an ordinary 'supporter'.
This is a woman that represents Charlton at board level in grounds around the country as well as at The Valley. She is a representative of Charlton in company with her husband who is a senior official at the club.
The fact that she is allowed to speak out as she does is truly unbelievable!!
That is what worries me too. The AFCW people visited the Valley boardoom with open minds, hoping to learn directly from Meire herself what the vision is for the CAFC relationship with fans, which is so different to that of AFCW's. What they actually got was a bucket-load of Sue Parkes, saying all the stuff we have already read about from her, and pretty vociferously too.
I understand the AFCW guys managed to filter out all that sound and fury and reach their own conclusions, but it apparently had some effect at Walsall. So while it would be best to just ignore her, I worry about the effect she is having on other clubs' perceptions.
I think you'll get a taste of what other clubs think from the vote for a place on the EFL board.
Difficult to ignore her when she says something so inflammatory.
Bear in mind this isn't an ordinary 'supporter'.
This is a woman that represents Charlton at board level in grounds around the country as well as at The Valley. She is a representative of Charlton in company with her husband who is a senior official at the club.
The fact that she is allowed to speak out as she does is truly unbelievable!!
That is what worries me too. The AFCW people visited the Valley boardoom with open minds, hoping to learn directly from Meire herself what the vision is for the CAFC relationship with fans, which is so different to that of AFCW's. What they actually got was a bucket-load of Sue Parkes, saying all the stuff we have already read about from her, and pretty vociferously too.
I understand the AFCW guys managed to filter out all that sound and fury and reach their own conclusions, but it apparently had some effect at Walsall. So while it would be best to just ignore her, I worry about the effect she is having on other clubs' perceptions.
I think you'll get a taste of what other clubs think from the vote for a place on the EFL board.
Difficult to ignore her when she says something so inflammatory.
Bear in mind this isn't an ordinary 'supporter'.
This is a woman that represents Charlton at board level in grounds around the country as well as at The Valley. She is a representative of Charlton in company with her husband who is a senior official at the club.
The fact that she is allowed to speak out as she does is truly unbelievable!!
That is what worries me too. The AFCW people visited the Valley boardoom with open minds, hoping to learn directly from Meire herself what the vision is for the CAFC relationship with fans, which is so different to that of AFCW's. What they actually got was a bucket-load of Sue Parkes, saying all the stuff we have already read about from her, and pretty vociferously too.
I understand the AFCW guys managed to filter out all that sound and fury and reach their own conclusions, but it apparently had some effect at Walsall. So while it would be best to just ignore her, I worry about the effect she is having on other clubs' perceptions.
I think you'll get a taste of what other clubs think from the vote for a place on the EFL board.
Comments
That's just the way I see it. My opinion. No more than that. Can't believe I'm getting so much heat for something which is my opinion.
What you've described is literally the definition of a PR stunt.
Well done Jim. I agree with your stance and it could have been so easy for the club to have got this right. Yet again they fail.
None of us (apart from a few) are happy with the regime, but it seems to me that the more in-fighting on forums and between different forums is 'ramping up' and that old saying 'divide and rule' is beginning to enter my head as the regimes plan.
I try to take an objective view on life nowadays, for obvious reasons, and I want this mob gone as much as anyone, but arguing among ourselves is futile.
I hope and pray that we as a collective, across all forums and threads, can tolerate others point of view, it would not be human nature if we all agreed on everything, but lets not let this sign and hence the regime turn us against each other. If we do then they may have won.
I hope I haven't spoken out of turn and my intention is not to upset anyone, I'm just asking for tolerance, if we show that we wont be defeated.
Thanks RM
Plus, 'set the wheels in motion'? THEY'RE PAINTING A SIGN!
Bear in mind this isn't an ordinary 'supporter'.
This is a woman that represents Charlton at board level in grounds around the country as well as at The Valley. She is a representative of Charlton in company with her husband who is a senior official at the club.
The fact that she is allowed to speak out as she does is truly unbelievable!!
Why? Are they really that dense.
And to suggest that refusing the clubs request was "impolite". Just what planet does she live on? she clearly does not understand why people are so upset and annoyed. She doesn't have to agree with them, but at least try to understand why they might have the arsehole.
Chris Parkes is a true Charlton man having worked here for so long, but his wife & this regime will see his legacy tarnished
Echoes of plebgate.
The club ought to honour Seed whatever, and need not have the blessing of any fan group or indeed relative in order to do it, although the family blessing would be lovely.
Sue seems to be saying that the club is doing an enormous favour on this, and the family ought to be grateful like Oliver Twist with his gruel, and if not, then the sign should not go ahead in being restored.
I am assuming Sue has an attitude similar to Katrien and Keohane on this.
As for Swisdom and CACT. It looks to me that the CACT is being used and exploited in a similar way to target20k, and I would be in support of action by fans to educate the wider community in the upcoming Football in Business event. If the CACT is doing a good job an awards event makes no difference to them, but an award that this regime wrongly claims the credit for certainly makes a difference to me and some other fans too.
I have plenty of time for Jason Morgan but sometimes there are bigger issues.
I understand the AFCW guys managed to filter out all that sound and fury and reach their own conclusions, but it apparently had some effect at Walsall. So while it would be best to just ignore her, I worry about the effect she is having on other clubs' perceptions.
I mean, come on, surely Chris would be pulling his hair out.
Re your second point - you're right - meeting other teams board members gives her the ability to do damage. But I'd suggest the damage she's routinely does is far greater to her reputation and the regime, and for the most part strengthen CARD's aim of ridding the club of Roland and Co.
Personally I'd suggest we continue to focus efforts on media and fans of other clubs. The more we continue to mobilise and support our cause, the closer we are to driving them out of the club.
Doesn't mean she's not a {...} though...
I don't believe that that the comment about renaming the stand is a serious suggestion. It comes across as a juvenile retort from someone who's been stung. It's not a properly thought out proposal, it's a side swipe at Jim Dutton. But of course the point of naming the stand is not to honour Jim, it's to honour his grandfather; the greatest manager our club has ever had. To dishonour Jimmy Seed by renaming the stand, may seem to Sue like a simple way to get back at his grandson, but it would in reality be a huge dishonour to Charlton Athletic Football Club. I expect that when she thinks about what she's said, she'll understand the flawed-logic. Then again, she comes across as a person with more opinions than brain cells, so maybe not.
Talking of juvenile retorts, here's one of my own: I sincerely hope that when this regime finally leaves, the new owners forcibly remove Sue Perks snout from the trough.
Her comment shows a complete lack of understanding and respect.
Also I don'y buy in to the belief that Mr Parkes is not of the same views of Mrs Parkes, because if that were the case he could (and should) very well put out a disclaimer.
Of course she is entitled to a personal view but some of her comments are inflammatory and as she has intimated and witnessed by others, a platform to air these views as the clubs official one. Then surly if the club secretary does not agree it should be stated publicly.
Joke.