Having Richard Wiseman involved is a good thing, I doubt much will come of this, but getting the meeting in the manner CARD achieved it shows how shoddy we as a fan Base are treated
Card action has flushed out a meeting with RM, so well done CARD.
If Roland has an opportunity to sell players, he will. Fans are expecting Konsa to be sold for 4 million, with £300,00 for Holmes who has already been sold.
According this forum he is losing £500,000 per month. That £6 million per year.
Selling players will cut his losses, down from £6 million to £2.7 million.
It makes good business sense.
The more he hangs on to the club the more he will lose money.
Now CARD should consider asking fans not to buy next year season tickets.
This may provoke Roland into selling the club as he will faced with catastrophic losses.
Perhaps he will then sell the club before the end of this season.
This proposed action may have the desired effect.
Please discuss
He's not losing £500k per month. As I understand it, he is loaning the club £500k (or whatever the actual figure is) from his parent company each month and the club are then paying interest on the loan to his company - hence the debt continually growing.
That's part of the problem - it quickly reaches a point where there is no way of getting the loans back unless the club is successful. Seeing as he has realised he can't make that happen (because his ideas are crap, but he blames everybody else), he is losing money whatever way you look at it. I mean, who is going to pay £55m for the club when he only paid £18m!!!! It has lost thousands of fans, has less playing assets and is an average club in a lower division than when it cost £18m!
Roland going to sell konsa and hope the last 8 players gain promotion via the play offs. He will then sell for more than the 27 mil offered but not the 55 mill. Then in his eyes and probably mine the nutters not done that bad
RM is trying to cosy himself up to the new owners by being the link to fans. Sadly, he has been tainted by the RD years and needs to take a back seat. There is nothing he can say at the meeting except - we are in discussions with bidders and are powerless to stop RD selling whoever he wants, whenever he wants.
£400K for Ricky is going to bring my "Yann upset" all back again. The Belgian must go - ASAP, before he can do any more damage. Then we need a clean sweep of all the old guard, incl RM, that nonsense security guard bloke, and all those Rolandites with laptops and excel spreadsheets.
Not sure about KR though...........maybe let him have the full season?
He hasn't been tainted by Belgians, he's backed them to the tilt and has had nothing but distain for us fans and utter disregard for the best interests of Charlton, he's done this all off his own back.
Well I will be looking for a sense from him as to whether we are looking at days, weeks, months or nobody knows! I think if he is able to convince us it is very likely to happen, even in a month or two, it will calm things down. Obviously there is a secondary concern about an opportunity being wasted this season but there isn't much we can do about it - when the window has closed, it has closed.
My worry is Duchatelet is unrealistic - he has been unrealistic from day one after all - so if he wants too much money to get back what he has paid in - I can't see how he will ever sell the club. If Murray convinces me that is not his approach, that would be something.
Had a secondment at uni for 3 months where the company organised a room for me to stay in a Enfield in a proper 1950s house. The guy who’s house it was was went over the road to the working men’s club 5 nights a week and played crib, I went too.
By the end of the three months I could just about win a best of 5 once in a blue moon.
The Coalition Against Roland Duchatelet (CARD) welcomes the fact that our statement on Tuesday has forced Addicks director Richard Murray to seek a meeting with elected representatives of the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust (CAST) on Saturday.
CAST is an important part of our coalition and we believe that its chair and vice chair can be relied upon to ask the necessary questions about the club’s current situation. Of course, it remains to be seen whether any satisfactory answers are provided.
This meeting is a direct outcome of our statement and in the light of it we are postponing our rally from Saturday, since it makes no sense to ask Richard Murray to hold both a private meeting and a public one on the same day. Clearly, what is discussed in private must be shared publicly afterwards.
CARD’s aim this week has been to get answers and positive outcomes for Charlton fans. We do not stage protests for their own sake, and we believe a postponement is the reasonable and responsible approach to take in this case, although as ever we realise there will be a range of views about that.
We will make a further statement about our next move when we have reviewed any information that comes out of the meeting.
Forcing Murray to speak on Saturday is a start, although it is hard to take seriously anything that comes out of his mouth these days.
The most important act for any new owner in my opinion is to get Murray out the door, immediately. Charlton will never be able to move on and recover with Murray still here.
I confess to being confused as to the nature of the debate over this latest initiative.
Is there any doubt, despite the best endeavours of many hardworking staff, any resemblance of the current organisation to a professionally structured, organised, competitive, vibrant, professional football club is only passing.
CARD requested, if you wanted clarity on the current status & future of the club, you attend a gathering to add your voice to the demands for more information.
Now it is true that does not mean, in ever changing circumstances, any intransigence in effecting the sale of the club would not see a different approach.
Whether there will be an appropriate response with any meaningful information is a matter of speculation.
It is 3 weeks since the club announced the departure of the CEO, a role fundamental to the operation of any organisation and particularly relevant to this crucial stage of the season.
Club activity at this time will be key to the remainder of our season.
The one half statement re the transfer of Holmes and any capital outlay on incoming transfers poses more questions than answers. One question being, beyond day to day football matters, just who is supposed to be speaking on behalf of the club?
Did nobody find that the Robinson comments on the failure to sign Carruthers were published on the clubs' official web site odd? Did SE7 declare UDI? How is a managers statement alluding to the lack of support by "you know who" distributed by an organisation owned by ......"you know who"
I understood the frustration of the original comment but it's broadcast via the OS is as bizarre as asking the football manager to be the only club spokesman.
Mr Robinson did speak warmly of Mr Murray. Unfortunately he does speak in the moment which means he changes tack so regularly it can but limit the value of such contributions. In present circumstances you can but sympathise.
If Mr Robinson has had the support of Mr Murray then credit is due to the latter.
Indeed all credit to Mr Murray for his contributions to the club over the many administrative iterations (I have lost count) with which he has been involved.
I have no doubt he formed part of an impressive triumvirate with Varney & Curbishley in earning the club a seat at the highest table in the national game. Together they were a formidable unit but as history has shown, as per Clough without Taylor, their respective individual contributions have been less impressive.
The challenges to the Murray legacy are the question marks over his decision making in his own right. None of us gets to live on past glories forever. It comes under the category "so what have you done lately?" If you want acknowledgement of personal contributions you have to accept the criticisms when the consequences of your decisions are considerably less successful.
I have little doubt he kept the club functioning at times when no one else was either interested or able but imagine there are any number of "investors" who have passed through the hallowed halls of The Valley who will testify to the negative impact on their bank balance.
I have never met Mr Murray. He has been an extremely successful business man. I am sure he is very affable but in business terms appears to very much be "corporate man" where the corporate line is always to the fore no matter how ugly the corporate operations may become.
The hiatus within the Slater & Jiminez stewardship, wherever the responsibility lay, appears to speak to the challenges he has not been able to navigate. There were clearly issues of professional concern within the club to the point where there were executive departures which generated recourse to due legal process all I believe requiring confidential financial settlement by the club.
Mr Murray appears to have chosen to support a particular corporate line. Within legal boundaries that is his right. That others chose to challenge that line has apparently engendered a conflict that seemingly continues to this day, no matter the possible detriment to the club. The duty of any corporate officer is to always serve the best interests of the company.
Throughout the Duchatelet ownership Mr Murray has continued to follow the corporate line. He seems to be of the view it is better to be inside the camp having a measure of influence, however minimal, than making any public stand over the decimation we have witnessed. It is a not unreasonable argument.
I again can respect the corporate discipline but if you follow such argument you have to be prepared to pay the price. Figuratively if you "sleep with the dogs" do not be surprised if you end up with fleas and if ever there has been a flea bitten administration it is the one we have endured for much of the past 4yrs.
Ultimately whatever the apparent Pontius Pilate approach, as a Charlton "stalwart" his "influence" has seen the degradation of the clubs playing status, a collapse of club support with the 40% reduction in season ticket sales, with games played to a 3/4 quarters empty stadium and division riven through our ranks.
So just what exactly have you done lately?
For a man whose wealth has largely been accrued via media channels the positioning of the unrest as an "internet thing", also reflected in the owners comments on social media, is alarmingly out of touch with the reality of the situation and indeed modern society.
The above statistics give the lie to any such assertion. Social media for all its ills is no more than a far reaching interactive broadcast medium able to draw attention to and highlight such failings and offer a vehicle for change.
As of now as each day goes by the niceties of "in house" politics, in the face of operational need, increasingly no longer apply. Mr Murray, you chose to associate yourself with this administration, with the CEO gone and the beneficial owner in his counting house counting out his money look around, there is no one else left.
If you want people to respect a legacy there are bridges to be built and fences to be mended. Respect is a two way street.
As of today the football clubhouse, the manager and players need the fullest support. To a very large number of supporters without a vibrant clubhouse we have nothing and neither playing or financial goals can be delivered. Evidence suggests we have very good cause to be concerned as to what level of support will be forthcoming.
To be blunt, whatever the circumstances, just how many more coaches & players are going to be short changed by this ownership? The continuing damage to our industry profile is unacceptable. It is a matter of credibility. Why would any coach or player consider staying if any alternative is on the table? Just why would any competent, experienced player with ambition sign up in the first place?
If this club is to have any future material change is needed. It is needed now.
An open dialogue would be a sound start.
Against the background of the past 4 yrs today's interaction with the Trust presents the opportunity of an "open" goal. As we have seen all too frequently this season such opportunities have passed us by. Indeed we have already seen too many costly "own" goals.
I can but hope Mr Murray you are fit and well and up for the challenge "when Saturday comes".
Any road to recovery has to start with the first step.
I wish Richard Wiseman and Steve Clarke a constructive and productive conversation with Richard Murray today. I will be delighted if they learn anything of substance, but think it is unlikely. If nothing else, I hope Murray takes from the meeting the reality that supporters have no confidence in him after his failure for the past 4 years to fulfil his self-appointed role as go-between, and that patience is paper-thin.
CAFC is currently rudderless, with an absentee owner who seemingly has no interest in the club beyond what money he can salvage from the wreck he has created. Roland is clearly ignorant of the realities of the football industry, and appears set to duplicate the disastrous asset-reducing decisions he made when he first bought the club. The phrase “penny wise, pound foolish” appears tailor-made for RD’s approach to running, and now selling, the club.
Can Richard Murray do anything to reduce the long term damage? I have my doubts. Why is RM hanging around being Roland’s human shield? Interest in CAFC? Or self-interest?
If the Trust is reading, one question I would have is whether any of the interested parties are property people...
Was at work yesterday when a contact of mine who I would describe as a big hitter in the property world said to me “Charlton are being sold” - he is a fan of a big4 team who has never shown interest in Charlton before. So I resisted the temptation of saying “thanks Colin” and said yes, it is well known amongst fans. He said he had heard through a contact of his that it is a property play.
I have no idea who told him and therefore whether it is credible as a rumour but he would not have simply made it up as he is just not interested enough in us or me to do that!
Comments
He will then sell for more than the 27 mil offered but not the 55 mill.
Then in his eyes and probably mine the nutters not done that bad
My worry is Duchatelet is unrealistic - he has been unrealistic from day one after all - so if he wants too much money to get back what he has paid in - I can't see how he will ever sell the club. If Murray convinces me that is not his approach, that would be something.
Apologies to all of you who have worked so hard with great ideas and implemented them to draw attention to CAFC's plight to a wider audience.
Still can't believe how far Charlton have fallen with arguably it's wealthiest owner.
Looking forward to a new and happier era asap...
By the end of the three months I could just about win a best of 5 once in a blue moon.
Great game.
The most important act for any new owner in my opinion is to get Murray out the door, immediately. Charlton will never be able to move on and recover with Murray still here.
Is there any doubt, despite the best endeavours of many hardworking staff, any resemblance of the current organisation to a professionally structured, organised, competitive, vibrant, professional football club is only passing.
CARD requested, if you wanted clarity on the current status & future of the club, you attend a gathering to add your voice to the demands for more information.
Now it is true that does not mean, in ever changing circumstances, any intransigence in effecting the sale of the club would not see a different approach.
Whether there will be an appropriate response with any meaningful information is a matter of speculation.
It is 3 weeks since the club announced the departure of the CEO, a role fundamental to the operation of any organisation and particularly relevant to this crucial stage of the season.
Club activity at this time will be key to the remainder of our season.
The one half statement re the transfer of Holmes and any capital outlay on incoming transfers poses more questions than answers. One question being, beyond day to day football matters, just who is supposed to be speaking on behalf of the club?
Did nobody find that the Robinson comments on the failure to sign Carruthers were published on the clubs' official web site odd? Did SE7 declare UDI? How is a managers statement alluding to the lack of support by "you know who" distributed by an organisation owned by ......"you know who"
I understood the frustration of the original comment but it's broadcast via the OS is as bizarre as asking the football manager to be the only club spokesman.
Mr Robinson did speak warmly of Mr Murray. Unfortunately he does speak in the moment which means he changes tack so regularly it can but limit the value of such contributions. In present circumstances you can but sympathise.
If Mr Robinson has had the support of Mr Murray then credit is due to the latter.
Indeed all credit to Mr Murray for his contributions to the club over the many administrative iterations (I have lost count) with which he has been involved.
I have no doubt he formed part of an impressive triumvirate with Varney & Curbishley in earning the club a seat at the highest table in the national game. Together they were a formidable unit but as history has shown, as per Clough without Taylor, their respective individual contributions have been less impressive.
The challenges to the Murray legacy are the question marks over his decision making in his own right. None of us gets to live on past glories forever. It comes under the category "so what have you done lately?" If you want acknowledgement of personal contributions you have to accept the criticisms when the consequences of your decisions are considerably less successful.
I have little doubt he kept the club functioning at times when no one else was either interested or able but imagine there are any number of "investors" who have passed through the hallowed halls of The Valley who will testify to the negative impact on their bank balance.
I have never met Mr Murray. He has been an extremely successful business man. I am sure he is very affable but in business terms appears to very much be "corporate man" where the corporate line is always to the fore no matter how ugly the corporate operations may become.
The hiatus within the Slater & Jiminez stewardship, wherever the responsibility lay, appears to speak to the challenges he has not been able to navigate. There were clearly issues of professional concern within the club to the point where there were executive departures which generated recourse to due legal process all I believe requiring confidential financial settlement by the club.
Mr Murray appears to have chosen to support a particular corporate line. Within legal boundaries that is his right. That others chose to challenge that line has apparently engendered a conflict that seemingly continues to this day, no matter the possible detriment to the club. The duty of any corporate officer is to always serve the best interests of the company.
Throughout the Duchatelet ownership Mr Murray has continued to follow the corporate line. He seems to be of the view it is better to be inside the camp having a measure of influence, however minimal, than making any public stand over the decimation we have witnessed. It is a not unreasonable argument.
I again can respect the corporate discipline but if you follow such argument you have to be prepared to pay the price. Figuratively if you "sleep with the dogs" do not be surprised if you end up with fleas and if ever there has been a flea bitten administration it is the one we have endured for much of the past 4yrs.
Ultimately whatever the apparent Pontius Pilate approach, as a Charlton "stalwart" his "influence" has seen the degradation of the clubs playing status, a collapse of club support with the 40% reduction in season ticket sales, with games played to a 3/4 quarters empty stadium and division riven through our ranks.
So just what exactly have you done lately?
For a man whose wealth has largely been accrued via media channels the positioning of the unrest as an "internet thing", also reflected in the owners comments on social media, is alarmingly out of touch with the reality of the situation and indeed modern society.
The above statistics give the lie to any such assertion. Social media for all its ills is no more than a far reaching interactive broadcast medium able to draw attention to and highlight such failings and offer a vehicle for change.
As of now as each day goes by the niceties of "in house" politics, in the face of operational need, increasingly no longer apply. Mr Murray, you chose to associate yourself with this administration, with the CEO gone and the beneficial owner in his counting house counting out his money look around, there is no one else left.
If you want people to respect a legacy there are bridges to be built and fences to be mended. Respect is a two way street.
As of today the football clubhouse, the manager and players need the fullest support. To a very large number of supporters without a vibrant clubhouse we have nothing and neither playing or financial goals can be delivered. Evidence suggests we have very good cause to be concerned as to what level of support will be forthcoming.
To be blunt, whatever the circumstances, just how many more coaches & players are going to be short changed by this ownership? The continuing damage to our industry profile is unacceptable. It is a matter of credibility. Why would any coach or player consider staying if any alternative is on the table? Just why would any competent, experienced player with ambition sign up in the first place?
If this club is to have any future material change is needed. It is needed now.
An open dialogue would be a sound start.
Against the background of the past 4 yrs today's interaction with the Trust presents the opportunity of an "open" goal. As we have seen all too frequently this season such opportunities have passed us by. Indeed we have already seen too many costly "own" goals.
I can but hope Mr Murray you are fit and well and up for the challenge "when Saturday comes".
Any road to recovery has to start with the first step.
CAFC is currently rudderless, with an absentee owner who seemingly has no interest in the club beyond what money he can salvage from the wreck he has created. Roland is clearly ignorant of the realities of the football industry, and appears set to duplicate the disastrous asset-reducing decisions he made when he first bought the club. The phrase “penny wise, pound foolish” appears tailor-made for RD’s approach to running, and now selling, the club.
Can Richard Murray do anything to reduce the long term damage? I have my doubts. Why is RM hanging around being Roland’s human shield? Interest in CAFC? Or self-interest?
Was at work yesterday when a contact of mine who I would describe as a big hitter in the property world said to me “Charlton are being sold” - he is a fan of a big4 team who has never shown interest in Charlton before. So I resisted the temptation of saying “thanks Colin” and said yes, it is well known amongst fans. He said he had heard through a contact of his that it is a property play.
I have no idea who told him and therefore whether it is credible as a rumour but he would not have simply made it up as he is just not interested enough in us or me to do that!