Guys, there's an old saying, 'know your enemy'..... where a fan sits is a matter of personal choice; please do not assume that everyone sitting in the Directors Box are on freebies from 'the regime'. I for one pay the full price for my seat, lounge and car park pass and have done since I left my position as Commercial Director in 2009. Also, contrary to the assertion made in an earlier post, Chris Roberts the former Leader of Greenwich Council, pays full price for his seat. Who do you think is handing out freebies for heaven's sake....most of the people in the seats around me are either season ticket holders or corporate hospitality guests. Unless I'm sitting with the Charlton Athletic Community Trust and its guests in my role as a CACT Ambassador, I sit with or near my former colleagues and Board members, Alwen, Simons, Whitehand, White, Collins, Sumners, Ufton......please stop this aggression towards anyone sitting in the Directors Box, it's very disappointing.
I'm sorry but that doesn't really wash with me. You could choose to sit anywhere in the ground but you knowingly choose to sit near people who are ruining the club. If I chose to associate with known football hooligans at a match I could hardly complain if I were the subject of some Police attention.
Given that a Charlton supporter was assaulted by a number of people who shared the Director's box with you, ( as witnessed by many people on this forum including myself ) and that they were almost certainly directed to do so by other people sharing the Director's box with you I would suggest that you choose other people to share the match day experience with. If you fail to do so, knowing all that, then you can hardly complain if you viewed as part of the problem.
I see your point but I think that is a bit harsh.
I do not think you can tie everybody with the same brush.
I don't think it is harsh at all.
If there was any leeway before, then surely that has gone after yesterday's events. A young man was assaulted, outside of the stadium, for previously carrying a wordless flag. This has been caught on film and witnessed by many people.The people who carried out and concocted this crime sat in the director's box. It is a simple choice, sit in the director's box alongside these people or not. If you choose to remain there then you deserve the loathing that comes your way.
Unless we are at crossed purposes, I cannot see how there is a connection between ex club officials who are obviously sympathetic to the clubs cause, and the four or five individuals involved in the fracas afterwards.
Not sure what you mean there but can assure you the former directors are more closely aligned to CARD's position than they are to the regime's.
Guys, there's an old saying, 'know your enemy'..... where a fan sits is a matter of personal choice; please do not assume that everyone sitting in the Directors Box are on freebies from 'the regime'. I for one pay the full price for my seat, lounge and car park pass and have done since I left my position as Commercial Director in 2009. Also, contrary to the assertion made in an earlier post, Chris Roberts the former Leader of Greenwich Council, pays full price for his seat. Who do you think is handing out freebies for heaven's sake....most of the people in the seats around me are either season ticket holders or corporate hospitality guests. Unless I'm sitting with the Charlton Athletic Community Trust and its guests in my role as a CACT Ambassador, I sit with or near my former colleagues and Board members, Alwen, Simons, Whitehand, White, Collins, Sumners, Ufton......please stop this aggression towards anyone sitting in the Directors Box, it's very disappointing.
I'm sorry but that doesn't really wash with me. You could choose to sit anywhere in the ground but you knowingly choose to sit near people who are ruining the club. If I chose to associate with known football hooligans at a match I could hardly complain if I were the subject of some Police attention.
Given that a Charlton supporter was assaulted by a number of people who shared the Director's box with you, ( as witnessed by many people on this forum including myself ) and that they were almost certainly directed to do so by other people sharing the Director's box with you I would suggest that you choose other people to share the match day experience with. If you fail to do so, knowing all that, then you can hardly complain if you viewed as part of the problem.
I see your point but I think that is a bit harsh.
I do not think you can tie everybody with the same brush.
I don't think it is harsh at all.
If there was any leeway before, then surely that has gone after yesterday's events. A young man was assaulted, outside of the stadium, for previously carrying a wordless flag. This has been caught on film and witnessed by many people.The people who carried out and concocted this crime sat in the director's box. It is a simple choice, sit in the director's box alongside these people or not. If you choose to remain there then you deserve the loathing that comes your way.
Unless we are at crossed purposes, I cannot see how there is a connection between ex club officials who are obviously sympathetic to the clubs cause, and the four or five individuals involved in the fracas afterwards.
Not sure what you mean there but can assure you the former directors are more closely aligned to CARD's position than they are to the regime's.
I think there has been some misunderstanding here.
I am only distancing the likes of Sutherland from the yobs that were in the directors box on Saturday.
Indeed, I was only pointing out that "the club's cause" might be read to mean the ex-directors are pro regime, which generally they are not.
Sutherland isn't just in the directors' box though, is he? He's talking to one of the four thugs that took part in the assault of a kid who was doing nothing at the time but peacefully and quietly leaving the ground. In fact he looks to me to be the one who was doing his best to goad other fans into causing trouble. Seems to be a strange choice of company.
To be fair they could have just been talking about the game. You could sit in front of someone at a game and be snapped briefly chatting about an incident on the pitch then they go and glass someone at full time in a pub and wouldn't mean you were associated with them in anyway. Let's keep some perspective maybe
Sutherland isn't just in the directors' box though, is he? He's talking to one of the four thugs that took part in the assault of a kid who was doing nothing at the time but peacefully and quietly leaving the ground. In fact he looks to me to be the one who was doing his best to goad other fans into causing trouble. Seems to be a strange choice of company.
@Covered End was talking with Katrien and Cahones before the game on Saturday. I know because I've got a photo of it.
Does this prove that @Covered End is pro-regime? Must do by your logic.
@suthers is clearly talking to the steward but we don't know about what. He might be saying "Get that little scrot and strangle him outside" or he might be saying "The team in red has to kick the ball into the net defended by the team in blue and vice versa".
If someone he's never met who's sitting behind him engages him in conversation that doesn't make @Suthers complict in the actions of that person after the event.
Sutherland isn't just in the directors' box though, is he? He's talking to one of the four thugs that took part in the assault of a kid who was doing nothing at the time but peacefully and quietly leaving the ground. In fact he looks to me to be the one who was doing his best to goad other fans into causing trouble. Seems to be a strange choice of company.
To be fair they could have just been talking about the game. You could sit in front of someone at a game and be snapped briefly chatting about an incident on the pitch then they go and glass someone at full time in a pub and wouldn't mean you were associated with them in anyway. Let's keep some perspective maybe
True enough, but the guy was there working as personal protection/snatch squad for squirrel face. I doubt if he was likely to have been interested in the football.
Sutherland isn't just in the directors' box though, is he? He's talking to one of the four thugs that took part in the assault of a kid who was doing nothing at the time but peacefully and quietly leaving the ground. In fact he looks to me to be the one who was doing his best to goad other fans into causing trouble. Seems to be a strange choice of company.
@Covered End was talking with Katrien and Cahones before the game on Saturday. I know because I've got a photo of it.
Does this prove that @Covered End is pro-regime? Must do by your logic.
@suthers is clearly talking to the steward but we don't know about what. He might be saying "Get that little scrot and strangle him outside" or he might be saying "The team in red has to kick the ball into the net defended by the team in blue and vice versa".
If someone he's never met who's sitting behind him engages him in conversation that doesn't make @Suthers complict in the actions of that person after the event.
Sutherland isn't just in the directors' box though, is he? He's talking to one of the four thugs that took part in the assault of a kid who was doing nothing at the time but peacefully and quietly leaving the ground. In fact he looks to me to be the one who was doing his best to goad other fans into causing trouble. Seems to be a strange choice of company.
@Covered End was talking with Katrien and Cahones before the game on Saturday. I know because I've got a photo of it.
Does this prove that @Covered End is pro-regime? Must do by your logic.
@suthers is clearly talking to the steward but we don't know about what. He might be saying "Get that little scrot and strangle him outside" or he might be saying "The team in red has to kick the ball into the net defended by the team in blue and vice versa".
If someone he's never met who's sitting behind him engages him in conversation that doesn't make @Suthers complict in the actions of that person after the event.
Agreed, @Covered End is a traitor and should be hung at the next city addicks meet
Sutherland isn't just in the directors' box though, is he? He's talking to one of the four thugs that took part in the assault of a kid who was doing nothing at the time but peacefully and quietly leaving the ground. In fact he looks to me to be the one who was doing his best to goad other fans into causing trouble. Seems to be a strange choice of company.
@Covered End was talking with Katrien and Cahones before the game on Saturday. I know because I've got a photo of it.
Does this prove that @Covered End is pro-regime? Must do by your logic.
@suthers is clearly talking to the steward but we don't know about what. He might be saying "Get that little scrot and strangle him outside" or he might be saying "The team in red has to kick the ball into the net defended by the team in blue and vice versa".
If someone he's never met who's sitting behind him engages him in conversation that doesn't make @Suthers complict in the actions of that person after the event.
Agreed, @Covered End is a traitor and should be hung at the next city addicks meet
Sutherland isn't just in the directors' box though, is he? He's talking to one of the four thugs that took part in the assault of a kid who was doing nothing at the time but peacefully and quietly leaving the ground. In fact he looks to me to be the one who was doing his best to goad other fans into causing trouble. Seems to be a strange choice of company.
@Covered End was talking with Katrien and Cahones before the game on Saturday. I know because I've got a photo of it.
Does this prove that @Covered End is pro-regime? Must do by your logic.
@suthers is clearly talking to the steward but we don't know about what. He might be saying "Get that little scrot and strangle him outside" or he might be saying "The team in red has to kick the ball into the net defended by the team in blue and vice versa".
If someone he's never met who's sitting behind him engages him in conversation that doesn't make @Suthers complict in the actions of that person after the event.
Both you and RCT are quite right that they are quite possibly talking about football. However it is not credible that Sutherland was unaware what this bloke's job was. It is possible that Sutherland was unaware before Saturday what a vile scumbag this bloke was. However Sutherland cannot claim to be unaware now.
Given this scum and his mates are supposedly there for Katrien's close protection,it is hardly conceivable that they would have left her side long before the stadium had emptied to go outside and deliberately target someone whose only offence was showing a wordless flag in the stadium, without the explicit permission or direction from someone high up in the club's regime. This suggests that they were told to do by other denizens of the director's box.
If Sutherland wasn't aware of just how nasty this regime was before Saturday, he must be aware now. If he continues to share their space and eat their vol-au-vents he deserves the contempt that comes his way. The choice is his.
Sutherland isn't just in the directors' box though, is he? He's talking to one of the four thugs that took part in the assault of a kid who was doing nothing at the time but peacefully and quietly leaving the ground. In fact he looks to me to be the one who was doing his best to goad other fans into causing trouble. Seems to be a strange choice of company.
@Covered End was talking with Katrien and Cahones before the game on Saturday. I know because I've got a photo of it.
Does this prove that @Covered End is pro-regime? Must do by your logic.
@suthers is clearly talking to the steward but we don't know about what. He might be saying "Get that little scrot and strangle him outside" or he might be saying "The team in red has to kick the ball into the net defended by the team in blue and vice versa".
If someone he's never met who's sitting behind him engages him in conversation that doesn't make @Suthers complict in the actions of that person after the event.
Both you and RCT are quite right that they are quite possibly talking about football. However it is not credible that Sutherland was unaware what this bloke's job was. It is possible that Sutherland was unaware before Saturday what a vile scumbag this bloke was. However Sutherland cannot claim to be unaware now.
Given this scum and his mates are supposedly there for Katrien's close protection,it is hardly conceivable that they would have left her side long before the stadium had emptied to go outside and deliberately target someone whose only offence was showing a wordless flag in the stadium, without the explicit permission or direction from someone high up in the club's regime. This suggests that they were told to do by other denizens of the director's box.
If Sutherland wasn't aware of just how nasty this regime was before Saturday, he must be aware now. If he continues to share their space and eat their vol-au-vents he deserves the contempt that comes his way. The choice is his.
That's two different things you are mixing up.
1. Having contact with the steward. He might not even be aware that the person he spoke to was involved.
2 sitting in the directors box doesn't mean he's in the chairman's suite with KM or even in what was the directors lounge. And the vol au vonts remarks is silly. Is it ok if he only eats the prawn sarnies?
We all share a stadium with them, doesn't make us traitors.
I think you are trying too hard to find a reason to angry with someone who's already said he's not a fan of the regime.
1. I covered that point in my post. You really must try to read posts properly before responding. It appears to have been established that the bloke he was talking to was not, as you state, a steward but one of Katrien's personal protection team.
2. I think you know the answer to that so why say it. I didn't say he was in the director's lounge did I? Do try to keep up.
The thrust of my argument is that he can no longer claim to be ignorant of the true nature of his neighbours in the director's box.
1. I covered that point in my post. You really must try to read posts properly before responding. It appears to have been established that the bloke he was talking to was not, as you state, a steward but one of Katrien's personal protection team.
2. I think you know the answer to that so why say it. I didn't say he was in the director's lounge did I? Do try to keep up.
The thrust of my argument is that he can no longer claim to be ignorant of the true nature of his neighbours in the director's box.
Oh dear, are you really going condescending because someone disagreed with you.
No, we've established works for the club via centre circle and as he was outside and away from KM not just a personal protection. Still, regardless of the title you've given him the point you were trying to make, badly, was Suthers was guilty of the crime of talking to someone. You are wrong.
The "thrust" of your weak argument seems to have changed.
He might NOW know the identity of the steward. He might not as he might not have read this thread. But he didn't know at the time he spoke to him.
I spoke to an older woman in front of me, and an older guy sat next to me in North Lower on Saturday, about the match, about some nut nut shouting that Magennis wasn't putting any effort in??????? Joking with her about leaving my soup (which I didn't actually have) in her coat hood.
My point?
Didn't know them from Adam, still don't, don't know if they are pro or anti regime, but whatever they are, doesn't make me complicit in anything they did or said before or after the game.
I want them out, I don't take part in the protests, but I choose not to purchase (apart from tickets) any food, drink, programmes or club merchandise, I don't think they are vindictive, or have some sinister plan, my personal view is that they are out of their depth and clueless, and surround themselves with equally clueless people.
I spoke to an older woman in front of me, and an older guy sat next to me in North Lower on Saturday, about the match, about some nut nut shouting that Magennis wasn't putting any effort in??????? Joking with her about leaving my soup (which I didn't actually have) in her coat hood.
My point?
Didn't know them from Adam, still don't, don't know if they are pro or anti regime, but whatever they are, doesn't make me complicit in anything they did or said before or after the game.
I want them out, I don't take part in the protests, but I choose not to purchase (apart from tickets) any food, drink, programmes or club merchandise, I don't think they are vindictive, or have some sinister plan, my personal view is that they are out of their depth and clueless, and surround themselves with equally clueless people.
This - with the complication that they actually believe they are the ones with expertise.
I spoke to an older woman in front of me, and an older guy sat next to me in North Lower on Saturday, about the match, about some nut nut shouting that Magennis wasn't putting any effort in??????? Joking with her about leaving my soup (which I didn't actually have) in her coat hood.
My point?
Didn't know them from Adam, still don't, don't know if they are pro or anti regime, but whatever they are, doesn't make me complicit in anything they did or said before or after the game.
I want them out, I don't take part in the protests, but I choose not to purchase (apart from tickets) any food, drink, programmes or club merchandise, I don't think they are vindictive, or have some sinister plan, my personal view is that they are out of their depth and clueless, and surround themselves with equally clueless people.
People who are unsure of their approach always surround themselves with sycophants.
Those who know what they are doing try to find even cleverer people for their team, i.e. they not fear it but embrace it.
Channel 5. My 5 seconds of fame. You may think I'm standing oddly but I still have a pig down my jeans....
Loving the 'Roland Out' scarves! Anyone know where I can get my hands on one?
A bloke got a large bag load of them done for the final game of last season (I think). Really nice bloke - paid for them all to be made and gave them out! I can't remember his name but @ME14addick may do?
Channel 5. My 5 seconds of fame. You may think I'm standing oddly but I still have a pig down my jeans....
Loving the 'Roland Out' scarves! Anyone know where I can get my hands on one?
A bloke got a large bag load of them done for the final game of last season (I think). Really nice bloke - paid for them all to be made and gave them out! I can't remember his name but @ME14addick may do?
Yes - was at the Burnley game. He gave me one when we were handing out posters. Nice guy I seem to remember and, as you say, all out of his own pocket. I think I saw him again on Saturday whilst I was handing out pigs in the car park.
@fannyfanackapan may know his name as I seem to remember he was keen to make sure she got a scarf
1. I covered that point in my post. You really must try to read posts properly before responding. It appears to have been established that the bloke he was talking to was not, as you state, a steward but one of Katrien's personal protection team.
2. I think you know the answer to that so why say it. I didn't say he was in the director's lounge did I? Do try to keep up.
The thrust of my argument is that he can no longer claim to be ignorant of the true nature of his neighbours in the director's box.
Oh dear, are you really going condescending because someone disagreed with you.
No, we've established works for the club via centre circle and as he was outside and away from KM not just a personal protection. Still, regardless of the title you've given him the point you were trying to make, badly, was Suthers was guilty of the crime of talking to someone. You are wrong.
The "thrust" of your weak argument seems to have changed.
He might NOW know the identity of the steward. He might not as he might not have read this thread. But he didn't know at the time he spoke to him.
If you read this thread you will see that the descent into condescension began with your prawn sarnie comment when someone disagreed with you.
With regard to giving the miscreant a title, it was you who wrongly described him as a steward. You have done it again in your latest post.
You clearly haven't read this thread properly because if you had, you would have seen that I have made it clear that Suthers may not have known the identity and character of the person he was conversing with at the time he was doing it and it therefore follows that I am not accusing him of any "crime".
You say that it is possible that he still might not know the identity of this person "as he might not have read this thread". Well, given the fact that he has posted on this thread that is highly unlikely. Had you bothered to read the thread you would have known that.
My argument hasn't changed at all.
In summary:
You were the one who started the condescension.
The first sentence of your second paragraph makes no sense at all. The rest of the paragraph is factually incorrect.
The second sentence of your fourth paragraph is factually wrong. The third sentence of the fourth paragraph states something as fact when it is merely a possibility.
Given that most of your latest post was drivel, some of it reading like drunken drivel, I will disregard your comment about the weakness of my argument with the pinch of salt it deserves.
I don't know @Suthers well, we've probably only spoken about 3-times in nearly 30-odd years but I wouldn't read too much into a photo of him talking to the man of the moment. As inferred above he's not exactly camera shy, you could probably google up a picture of him talking to a bigger idiot in seconds. He is a big big Charlton fan.
You need to take into account at least 10 people are in the Directors box representing the match sponsor. Match sponsors are provided with a table for 10 as part of the package and that includes the same amount of tickets in the Directors box.
You need to take into account at least 10 people are in the Directors box representing the match sponsor. Match sponsors are provided with a table for 10 as part of the package and that includes the same amount of tickets in the Directors box.
who in their right mind would pay to sponsor a match under this regime
You need to take into account at least 10 people are in the Directors box representing the match sponsor. Match sponsors are provided with a table for 10 as part of the package and that includes the same amount of tickets in the Directors box.
who in their right mind would pay to sponsor a match under this regime
We are starting to sound like some extremist movement where anybody not agreeing with us is the enemy and anyone talking to someone who does not support us is also, by association, the enemy. We are all CAFC supporters and we all want the same thing, ie the club to do well. Where we disagree is over the current management and the way the club needs to go to achieve the aim.
Let's not start getting into a mindset that we want to 'out' anyone we can as collaborators. I am not going to pass judgement on anyone because of where they sit or who they talk to. I wonder how many of us on the day would not have talked to the hired muscle - if just being civil - only to find out later what he had been involved in? There are still a lot of decent people working for the club, so talking to them does not make anyone guilty of backing Meire by association.
If they happen to sit in the directors' box, scoff free food and arrogantly dismiss protesters as mindless yobs, then fair enough. But anyone got a suggestion that @suthers falls into that category?
Comments
Does this prove that @Covered End is pro-regime? Must do by your logic.
@suthers is clearly talking to the steward but we don't know about what. He might be saying "Get that little scrot and strangle him outside" or he might be saying "The team in red has to kick the ball into the net defended by the team in blue and vice versa".
If someone he's never met who's sitting behind him engages him in conversation that doesn't make @Suthers complict in the actions of that person after the event.
Given this scum and his mates are supposedly there for Katrien's close protection,it is hardly conceivable that they would have left her side long before the stadium had emptied to go outside and deliberately target someone whose only offence was showing a wordless flag in the stadium, without the explicit permission or direction from someone high up in the club's regime. This suggests that they were told to do by other denizens of the director's box.
If Sutherland wasn't aware of just how nasty this regime was before Saturday, he must be aware now. If he continues to share their space and eat their vol-au-vents he deserves the contempt that comes his way. The choice is his.
1. Having contact with the steward. He might not even be aware that the person he spoke to was involved.
2 sitting in the directors box doesn't mean he's in the chairman's suite with KM or even in what was the directors lounge. And the vol au vonts remarks is silly. Is it ok if he only eats the prawn sarnies?
We all share a stadium with them, doesn't make us traitors.
I think you are trying too hard to find a reason to angry with someone who's already said he's not a fan of the regime.
2. I think you know the answer to that so why say it. I didn't say he was in the director's lounge did I? Do try to keep up.
The thrust of my argument is that he can no longer claim to be ignorant of the true nature of his neighbours in the director's box.
No, we've established works for the club via centre circle and as he was outside and away from KM not just a personal protection. Still, regardless of the title you've given him the point you were trying to make, badly, was Suthers was guilty of the crime of talking to someone. You are wrong.
The "thrust" of your weak argument seems to have changed.
He might NOW know the identity of the steward. He might not as he might not have read this thread. But he didn't know at the time he spoke to him.
My point?
Didn't know them from Adam, still don't, don't know if they are pro or anti regime, but whatever they are, doesn't make me complicit in anything they did or said before or after the game.
I want them out, I don't take part in the protests, but I choose not to purchase (apart from tickets) any food, drink, programmes or club merchandise, I don't think they are vindictive, or have some sinister plan, my personal view is that they are out of their depth and clueless, and surround themselves with equally clueless people.
Those who know what they are doing try to find even cleverer people for their team, i.e. they not fear it but embrace it.
@fannyfanackapan may know his name as I seem to remember he was keen to make sure she got a scarf
With regard to giving the miscreant a title, it was you who wrongly described him as a steward. You have done it again in your latest post.
You clearly haven't read this thread properly because if you had, you would have seen that I have made it clear that Suthers may not have known the identity and character of the person he was conversing with at the time he was doing it and it therefore follows that I am not accusing him of any "crime".
You say that it is possible that he still might not know the identity of this person "as he might not have read this thread". Well, given the fact that he has posted on this thread that is highly unlikely. Had you bothered to read the thread you would have known that.
My argument hasn't changed at all.
In summary:
You were the one who started the condescension.
The first sentence of your second paragraph makes no sense at all. The rest of the paragraph is factually incorrect.
The second sentence of your fourth paragraph is factually wrong. The third sentence of the fourth paragraph states something as fact when it is merely a possibility.
Given that most of your latest post was drivel, some of it reading like drunken drivel, I will disregard your comment about the weakness of my argument with the pinch of salt it deserves.
As inferred above he's not exactly camera shy, you could probably google up a picture of him talking to a bigger idiot in seconds. He is a big big Charlton fan.
Then we could round up the baying e-mob, issue the flaming pitchforks, etc....
The Roland Out scarves were produced by @BartleyPark
Let's not start getting into a mindset that we want to 'out' anyone we can as collaborators. I am not going to pass judgement on anyone because of where they sit or who they talk to. I wonder how many of us on the day would not have talked to the hired muscle - if just being civil - only to find out later what he had been involved in? There are still a lot of decent people working for the club, so talking to them does not make anyone guilty of backing Meire by association.
If they happen to sit in the directors' box, scoff free food and arrogantly dismiss protesters as mindless yobs, then fair enough. But anyone got a suggestion that @suthers falls into that category?