To not go he is making the ultimate sacrifice This pissy owner has taken the vinegar out of us and I for one have stopped spending at the club , no Valley Gold , no match sponsorship , no football kits for my boys , no food or drink at the ground . I wish I could turn a blind eye and watch him shaft my loved one whilst paying for his vanity project but I’ve withdrawn as much as I can Does it make a difference , well it does to my wellbeing and he clearly doesn’t wanna suffer losses, so the more we all take away from him the more the losses are . He deserves fuck all for taking the piss out of us
And the ones who can turn a blind eye and continue as normal are the lucky ones
As a reformed Millwall supporter, I'm not sure how should I take that ;-)
Anyway, my point, for what it's worth, is that like most very rich people, Roland hates failure. He was arrogant enough to believe that his superior intellect would be sufficient to start a new era in football, one where clubs could be run efficiently by vibrant (badly paid) young people with fresh ideas and no baggage (ie not interested in club's history).
Once he realised that his blueprint for soccer revolution wasn't working (through no fault of his own of course) he lost interest, and to avoid any accusations of failure now needs to sell for a small profit. 'Football wasn't ready for me' will be his cry, until his dying day.
??? The title of the thread is "Is it time for boycotters to return".
Based on whether boycotting will affect Roland's decision to sell the club. I'm saying part of his decision is based on avoidance of failure. Just making a contribution to the debate if that's ok @PeterGage ?
@JamesSeed - is it time for boycotters to return? Must be me, but I cant relate your response to the question. Yes or no?
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
There is so much in this post that I disagree with and so much that I find personally offensive that for my own blood pressure I'm not going to comment on any of it save as to say that in the ten years I've been reading Charlton Live I haven't read anything as offensive or arrogant or full of rubbish as this.
Seemed like a tongue in cheek post to me. Maybe I'm missing something.
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
There is so much in this post that I disagree with and so much that I find personally offensive that for my own blood pressure I'm not going to comment on any of it save as to say that in the ten years I've been reading Charlton Live I haven't read anything as offensive or arrogant or full of rubbish as this.
Never in the ten years I've been posting on here have I seen such an over dramatic reaction to another post as this one
The thing is that we all have to do what we think is right. Everybody's opinion is as valid as the next person some will choose to stay away some will attend and others will only go to away matches. Going back to when we played at sellhurst I chose to boycott and support the valley party. Some of my closest friends chose to go to sellhurst. We are still close friends now and respect one an others decisions that were made at the time. Whatever anyone chooses to do under our current owner is their decision and theirs alone. Hopefully we will be rid of Roland soon enough and we can move forward just as we did years ago when we returned to the valley.
Not sure that Stigs post was meant to be taken quite so seriously as it has been. I am still confused as I appear to be a CARD elite, vinegar pissing, quisling, regime apologist by protesting and going...
Go...don't go....boycott Bovril....buy 15 pints at half time. It's been done to death, hopefully it will be over soon and we can all get along, although that seems unlikely at the moment.
Not sure that Stigs post was meant to be taken quite so seriously as it has been. I am still confused as I appear to be a CARD elite, vinegar pissing, quisling, regime apologist by protesting and going...
I will go back when he sells and not before. I have no problem with people who did not boycott and it was my choice not anyone else. If I have deprived him of my money from two seats in the west stand and sitting in the millenium suite before the game and this has helped influence his decision to sell then there is no point in going back now and letting him have a route out.
Have I missed the matches - of course. Have I found other things to do - of course. Like the remainers and the non boycotters I support the team, but in my case I could not support the mind blowingly stupid strategy that was being followed by a so called businessman, so chose to display my displeasure in the way I felt would be effective.
The fact is that he is selling up and going. When this is done (club and ground) I will return to my old routine of travelling 120 miles round trip to support my team, I will wear red and white, not black and white from when I attended the odd protest and I will voice my support for the team again (and occasionally swear when it goes wrong). I am not a hero or a villain but like the rest of us (protesters and remainers alike) I am Charlton.
The thing is that we all have to do what we think is right. Everybody's opinion is as valid as the next person some will choose to stay away some will attend and others will only go to away matches. Going back to when we played at sellhurst I chose to boycott and support the valley party. Some of my closest friends chose to go to sellhurst. We are still close friends now and respect one an others decisions that were made at the time. Whatever anyone chooses to do under our current owner is their decision and theirs alone. Hopefully we will be rid of Roland soon enough and we can move forward just as we did years ago when we returned to the valley.
I agree with this - people should do what suits them - there is no wrong or right here
Rather more than four years have passed since the Duchâtelet era came into ownership of this club. What a cataract of disaster has poured out upon us since then!…
Meanwhile, we have not only fortified our hearts but our Island. We have rearmed and rebuilt our protests in a degree which would have been deemed impossible a few years ago.…
The whole Support base bristles against incompetence, from the within the club management or from the club ownership …the stronger our Protests at home, the larger must the costs of policing those protests be, and the larger the protests at home, the less difficult will be the task of the Belgian protests in detecting and intercepting the Owner and destroying its resolve; Our overseas presence is far stronger than it was at the beginning of the protests. The great flow of new protest initiatives set on foot at the outbreak is now beginning to come in.
Why do I say all this? Not, assuredly, to boast; not, assuredly, to give the slightest countenance to complacency. The dangers we face are still enormous, but so are our advantages and resources. I recount them because the people have a right to know that there are solid grounds for the confidence which we feel, and that we have good reason to believe ourselves capable, as I said in a very dark hour several months ago, of continuing the protests "if necessary alone, if necessary for years.
The great battle for the heart of the club which has been in progress for the last few years has recently attained a high intensity. It is too soon to attempt to assign limits either to its scale or to its duration. We must certainly expect that greater efforts will be made by the enemy than any he has so far put forth.… It is quite plain that Duchâtelet could not admit defeat in his financial deficit from owning on Charlton without sustaining most serious mental issues. If after all his boastings and bloodcurdling threats and lurid accounts trumpeted round the world of the successes he had made, of the vast numbers of our Supporters he retains the goodwill of, so he says, with so little loss to himself …if after all this his whole ownership were forced after a while tamely to peter out, Duchatelets reputation for veracity of statement might be seriously impugned.
We may be sure, therefore, that he will continue as long as he has the potential for further financial gain to do so.
The gratitude of every supporter in the valley, in our Club, and indeed throughout the world, goes out to the Many protesters of different groups and affinities who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and occasional personal risk, are turning the tide of the Duchatelet ownership by their prowess and by their devotion.
Never in the field of football club ownership was so much owed by so many to so few.
All hearts go out to the protesters, whose brilliant actions we see with our own eyes day after day, but we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, some protesters travel far into Belgium, find their targets in the darkness by the highest navigational skill, aim their attacks, often under the heaviest fire, often with financial loss and physical damage, with deliberate, careful discrimination, and inflict shattering blows upon the whole of the technical and reputational structure of the Duchatelet ideal
A good many people have written to me to ask me to make on this occasion a fuller statement of our protest aims, and of the kind of club we wish to make after the war, than is contained in the very considerable declaration which was made early in the autumn.…
I do not think it would be wise at this moment, while the battle rages and the war is still perhaps not finally completed, to embark upon elaborate speculations about the future shape which should be given to the club… But before we can undertake the task of rebuilding we have not only to be convinced ourselves, but we have to convince all other countries that the Duchâtelet tyranny is going to be finally broken.
The right to guide the course of club history is the a noble prize of victory. We are still toiling up the hill; we have not yet reached the crest-line of it; we cannot survey the landscape or even imagine what its condition will be when that longed-for morning comes. The task which lies before us immediately is at once more practical, more simple and more stern.… For the rest, we have to gain the victory.
(With thanks to W. Churchill and those who fought particularly in the Second World War for which this speech was written)
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
There is so much in this post that I disagree with and so much that I find personally offensive that for my own blood pressure I'm not going to comment on any of it save as to say that in the ten years I've been reading Charlton Live I haven't read anything as offensive or arrogant or full of rubbish as this.
Arrogant? Absolutely. Full of rubbish? Of course it is. The most offensive thing in ten years of reading Charlton Life? Wow! Just, WOW!
The thing is that we all have to do what we think is right. Everybody's opinion is as valid as the next person some will choose to stay away some will attend and others will only go to away matches. Going back to when we played at sellhurst I chose to boycott and support the valley party. Some of my closest friends chose to go to sellhurst. We are still close friends now and respect one an others decisions that were made at the time. Whatever anyone chooses to do under our current owner is their decision and theirs alone. Hopefully we will be rid of Roland soon enough and we can move forward just as we did years ago when we returned to the valley.
I agree with this - people should do what suits them - there is no wrong or right here
Spot on!
But I draw the line when some idiot tells me what a hero he is!
The thing is that we all have to do what we think is right. Everybody's opinion is as valid as the next person some will choose to stay away some will attend and others will only go to away matches. Going back to when we played at sellhurst I chose to boycott and support the valley party. Some of my closest friends chose to go to sellhurst. We are still close friends now and respect one an others decisions that were made at the time. Whatever anyone chooses to do under our current owner is their decision and theirs alone. Hopefully we will be rid of Roland soon enough and we can move forward just as we did years ago when we returned to the valley.
I agree with this - people should do what suits them - there is no wrong or right here
Spot on!
But I draw the line when some idiot tells me what a hero he is!
I didn't tell you, I told my imaginary grandson. Is it really so difficult to see how far my tongue was in my cheek?
The thing is that we all have to do what we think is right. Everybody's opinion is as valid as the next person some will choose to stay away some will attend and others will only go to away matches. Going back to when we played at sellhurst I chose to boycott and support the valley party. Some of my closest friends chose to go to sellhurst. We are still close friends now and respect one an others decisions that were made at the time. Whatever anyone chooses to do under our current owner is their decision and theirs alone. Hopefully we will be rid of Roland soon enough and we can move forward just as we did years ago when we returned to the valley.
I agree with this - people should do what suits them - there is no wrong or right here
Spot on!
But I draw the line when some idiot tells me what a hero he is!
You like calling people names don't you. Tell me, what does CARD stand for again in your world?
I also read the posting by @Nug as being with a huge slice of tongue in cheek, but I can affiliate with his overall message re his views on boycotters.
In the meantime.......still boycotting for me, but will be back at the first game after the sale.
If only Seb Lewis had turned up then Duchatelet would have sold up after a year. Yes or no ? Yes because he is a businessman. The down side to this hypothetical Q +A is that a business magnate would think there is no demand for a football club and make money by turning sparrows lane into a mega old folks home and the valley into a giant legalized Brothel (half price for existing season ticket holders or red card). A white paper on the subject of decriminalising the sex industry is going to be debated in 2018. So, do you want Keepy uppy or ? Keepy uppy !
It will be interesting to know how many of the people who've stopped going in the last few years are pure boycotters (i.e. will be back straight away) and how many are more "disillusioned" types (i.e. crap football, 3rd division etc)
After all, it's not as if our away attendances have soared, with loads of extra people going to away watches instead.
I for one ( & I'm sure I & many others have said it again & again)have put up with crap football for years & have put up with 3rd Divison football quite a few times but it has always been much more than about wanting glory glory glory. We always had hope that this year could be our year, however bad our various previous owners were they always wanted the team to win, the club to progress. This is OUR club & we put up with whatever was dealt us. The Belgians changed all of that, how could you continue putting money into the owners pocket when he has publicly stated that winning wasn't important as well as everything else connected to this cancerous regime. I'll be back for sure, right now I can't say I'll blindly attend EVERY game at the Valley but I'll certainly be back to support our club & hopefully owners that actually have an interest in owning a football club for footballing reasons.
The thing is that we all have to do what we think is right. Everybody's opinion is as valid as the next person some will choose to stay away some will attend and others will only go to away matches. Going back to when we played at sellhurst I chose to boycott and support the valley party. Some of my closest friends chose to go to sellhurst. We are still close friends now and respect one an others decisions that were made at the time. Whatever anyone chooses to do under our current owner is their decision and theirs alone. Hopefully we will be rid of Roland soon enough and we can move forward just as we did years ago when we returned to the valley.
I agree with this - people should do what suits them - there is no wrong or right here
Spot on!
But I draw the line when some idiot tells me what a hero he is!
You like calling people names don't you. Tell me, what does CARD stand for again in your world?
The thing is that we all have to do what we think is right. Everybody's opinion is as valid as the next person some will choose to stay away some will attend and others will only go to away matches. Going back to when we played at sellhurst I chose to boycott and support the valley party. Some of my closest friends chose to go to sellhurst. We are still close friends now and respect one an others decisions that were made at the time. Whatever anyone chooses to do under our current owner is their decision and theirs alone. Hopefully we will be rid of Roland soon enough and we can move forward just as we did years ago when we returned to the valley.
I agree with this - people should do what suits them - there is no wrong or right here
Spot on!
But I draw the line when some idiot tells me what a hero he is!
I didn't tell you, I told my imaginary grandson. Is it really so difficult to see how far my tongue was in my cheek?
The trouble with comedic writing with a message is it doesn't resonate unless your readers brain is equally wired up the same way. Carry on regardless Stig ( Was Sid James in that one )
The thing is that we all have to do what we think is right. Everybody's opinion is as valid as the next person some will choose to stay away some will attend and others will only go to away matches. Going back to when we played at sellhurst I chose to boycott and support the valley party. Some of my closest friends chose to go to sellhurst. We are still close friends now and respect one an others decisions that were made at the time. Whatever anyone chooses to do under our current owner is their decision and theirs alone. Hopefully we will be rid of Roland soon enough and we can move forward just as we did years ago when we returned to the valley.
I agree with this - people should do what suits them - there is no wrong or right here
Spot on!
But I draw the line when some idiot tells me what a hero he is!
You like calling people names don't you. Tell me, what does CARD stand for again in your world?
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
There is so much in this post that I disagree with and so much that I find personally offensive that for my own blood pressure I'm not going to comment on any of it save as to say that in the ten years I've been reading Charlton Live I haven't read anything as offensive or arrogant or full of rubbish as this.
Arrogant? Absolutely. Full of rubbish? Of course it is. The most offensive thing in ten years of reading Charlton Life? Wow! Just, WOW!
He obviously never saw the pics of @Redmidland in a mankini...
Not long to go now folks. Just a little more patience, a tad of compassion and we will all be back home very soon and wondering whether this was just another bad dream.
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
There is so much in this post that I disagree with and so much that I find personally offensive that for my own blood pressure I'm not going to comment on any of it save as to say that in the ten years I've been reading Charlton Live I haven't read anything as offensive or arrogant or full of rubbish as this.
Arrogant? Absolutely. Full of rubbish? Of course it is. The most offensive thing in ten years of reading Charlton Life? Wow! Just, WOW!
He obviously never saw the pics of @Redmidland in a mankini...
I have a copy on my fireplace, it keeps the dogs away from the fire!
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
There is so much in this post that I disagree with and so much that I find personally offensive that for my own blood pressure I'm not going to comment on any of it save as to say that in the ten years I've been reading Charlton Live I haven't read anything as offensive or arrogant or full of rubbish as this.
Really? Crikey, you've either not been here long or haven't read much :-O
The thing is that we all have to do what we think is right. Everybody's opinion is as valid as the next person some will choose to stay away some will attend and others will only go to away matches. Going back to when we played at sellhurst I chose to boycott and support the valley party. Some of my closest friends chose to go to sellhurst. We are still close friends now and respect one an others decisions that were made at the time. Whatever anyone chooses to do under our current owner is their decision and theirs alone. Hopefully we will be rid of Roland soon enough and we can move forward just as we did years ago when we returned to the valley.
I agree with this - people should do what suits them - there is no wrong or right here
Spot on!
But I draw the line when some idiot tells me what a hero he is!
You like calling people names don't you. Tell me, what does CARD stand for again in your world?
CARD doesn't exist in my world!
Answer the question for the gentleman. He asked nicely.
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
Interesting post, @Stig and food for thought indeed.
When my grandkids ask what I did in the war, I'll answer, with some pride, that I stood up to the White Witch and fought the "good" fight both at home & on foreign shores, albeit not Narnia.
And when they look up at me with wonder in their big eyes, asking if I was wounded in battle, I'll tell them that there were times when Nanny's old heart was near to breaking; the sad sight of thousands of empty seats at our Valley home, the rift between club and supporters and the deepest cut of all, the animosity between fellow Addicks created by the actions of just TWO people....Bill Shakespeare would have had a field day with this scenario.
No medals to show for my part in the battle ....just severely knackered loins, "worn" as a badge of honour.
But the time is nigh for "all good men/women to come to the (aid of the) party".
The time for celebration is close at hand.....
...closely followed by the time for rebuilding this famous football club that is ingrained in ALL our hearts....together.
Boycotters, protesters, season ticket holders, match by match attendees, regime supporters etc etc etc. The minute our club changes hands, none of these will be of any consequence.
Before Duchatelet we were simply Addicks.
And we shall be Addicks again.
All for one and one for all with one purpose & one purpose only.
Rather more than four years have passed since the Duchâtelet era came into ownership of this club. What a cataract of disaster has poured out upon us since then!…
Meanwhile, we have not only fortified our hearts but our Island. We have rearmed and rebuilt our protests in a degree which would have been deemed impossible a few years ago.…
The whole Support base bristles against incompetence, from the within the club management or from the club ownership …the stronger our Protests at home, the larger must the costs of policing those protests be, and the larger the protests at home, the less difficult will be the task of the Belgian protests in detecting and intercepting the Owner and destroying its resolve; Our overseas presence is far stronger than it was at the beginning of the protests. The great flow of new protest initiatives set on foot at the outbreak is now beginning to come in.
Why do I say all this? Not, assuredly, to boast; not, assuredly, to give the slightest countenance to complacency. The dangers we face are still enormous, but so are our advantages and resources. I recount them because the people have a right to know that there are solid grounds for the confidence which we feel, and that we have good reason to believe ourselves capable, as I said in a very dark hour several months ago, of continuing the protests "if necessary alone, if necessary for years.
The great battle for the heart of the club which has been in progress for the last few years has recently attained a high intensity. It is too soon to attempt to assign limits either to its scale or to its duration. We must certainly expect that greater efforts will be made by the enemy than any he has so far put forth.… It is quite plain that Duchâtelet could not admit defeat in his financial deficit from owning on Charlton without sustaining most serious mental issues. If after all his boastings and bloodcurdling threats and lurid accounts trumpeted round the world of the successes he had made, of the vast numbers of our Supporters he retains the goodwill of, so he says, with so little loss to himself …if after all this his whole ownership were forced after a while tamely to peter out, Duchatelets reputation for veracity of statement might be seriously impugned.
We may be sure, therefore, that he will continue as long as he has the potential for further financial gain to do so.
The gratitude of every supporter in the valley, in our Club, and indeed throughout the world, goes out to the Many protesters of different groups and affinities who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and occasional personal risk, are turning the tide of the Duchatelet ownership by their prowess and by their devotion.
Never in the field of football club ownership was so much owed by so many to so few.
All hearts go out to the protesters, whose brilliant actions we see with our own eyes day after day, but we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, some protesters travel far into Belgium, find their targets in the darkness by the highest navigational skill, aim their attacks, often under the heaviest fire, often with financial loss and physical damage, with deliberate, careful discrimination, and inflict shattering blows upon the whole of the technical and reputational structure of the Duchatelet ideal
A good many people have written to me to ask me to make on this occasion a fuller statement of our protest aims, and of the kind of club we wish to make after the war, than is contained in the very considerable declaration which was made early in the autumn.…
I do not think it would be wise at this moment, while the battle rages and the war is still perhaps not finally completed, to embark upon elaborate speculations about the future shape which should be given to the club… But before we can undertake the task of rebuilding we have not only to be convinced ourselves, but we have to convince all other countries that the Duchâtelet tyranny is going to be finally broken.
The right to guide the course of club history is the a noble prize of victory. We are still toiling up the hill; we have not yet reached the crest-line of it; we cannot survey the landscape or even imagine what its condition will be when that longed-for morning comes. The task which lies before us immediately is at once more practical, more simple and more stern.… For the rest, we have to gain the victory.
(With thanks to W. Churchill and those who fought particularly in the Second World War for which this speech was written)
The thing is that we all have to do what we think is right. Everybody's opinion is as valid as the next person some will choose to stay away some will attend and others will only go to away matches. Going back to when we played at sellhurst I chose to boycott and support the valley party. Some of my closest friends chose to go to sellhurst. We are still close friends now and respect one an others decisions that were made at the time. Whatever anyone chooses to do under our current owner is their decision and theirs alone. Hopefully we will be rid of Roland soon enough and we can move forward just as we did years ago when we returned to the valley.
I agree with this - people should do what suits them - there is no wrong or right here
Spot on!
But I draw the line when some idiot tells me what a hero he is!
Agreed - lets just hope we end up with clement atlee and not stuck behind an iron curtain
Comments
To not go he is making the ultimate sacrifice
This pissy owner has taken the vinegar out of us and I for one have stopped spending at the club , no Valley Gold , no match sponsorship , no football kits for my boys , no food or drink at the ground .
I wish I could turn a blind eye and watch him shaft my loved one whilst paying for his vanity project but I’ve withdrawn as much as I can
Does it make a difference , well it does to my wellbeing and he clearly doesn’t wanna suffer losses, so the more we all take away from him the more the losses are .
He deserves fuck all for taking the piss out of us
And the ones who can turn a blind eye and continue as normal are the lucky ones
Everybody's opinion is as valid as the next person some will choose to stay away some will attend and others will only go to away matches.
Going back to when we played at sellhurst I chose to boycott and support the valley party.
Some of my closest friends chose to go to sellhurst.
We are still close friends now and respect one an others decisions that were made at the time.
Whatever anyone chooses to do under our current owner is their decision and theirs alone.
Hopefully we will be rid of Roland soon enough and we can move forward just as we did years ago when we returned to the valley.
Have I missed the matches - of course. Have I found other things to do - of course. Like the remainers and the non boycotters I support the team, but in my case I could not support the mind blowingly stupid strategy that was being followed by a so called businessman, so chose to display my displeasure in the way I felt would be effective.
The fact is that he is selling up and going. When this is done (club and ground) I will return to my old routine of travelling 120 miles round trip to support my team, I will wear red and white, not black and white from when I attended the odd protest and I will voice my support for the team again (and occasionally swear when it goes wrong). I am not a hero or a villain but like the rest of us (protesters and remainers alike) I am Charlton.
Meanwhile, we have not only fortified our hearts but our Island. We have rearmed and rebuilt our protests in a degree which would have been deemed impossible a few years ago.…
The whole Support base bristles against incompetence, from the within the club management or from the club ownership …the stronger our Protests at home, the larger must the costs of policing those protests be, and the larger the protests at home, the less difficult will be the task of the Belgian protests in detecting and intercepting the Owner and destroying its resolve; Our overseas presence is far stronger than it was at the beginning of the protests. The great flow of new protest initiatives set on foot at the outbreak is now beginning to come in.
Why do I say all this? Not, assuredly, to boast; not, assuredly, to give the slightest countenance to complacency. The dangers we face are still enormous, but so are our advantages and resources. I recount them because the people have a right to know that there are solid grounds for the confidence which we feel, and that we have good reason to believe ourselves capable, as I said in a very dark hour several months ago, of continuing the protests "if necessary alone, if necessary for years.
The great battle for the heart of the club which has been in progress for the last few years has recently attained a high intensity. It is too soon to attempt to assign limits either to its scale or to its duration. We must certainly expect that greater efforts will be made by the enemy than any he has so far put forth.… It is quite plain that Duchâtelet could not admit defeat in his financial deficit from owning on Charlton without sustaining most serious mental issues. If after all his boastings and bloodcurdling threats and lurid accounts trumpeted round the world of the successes he had made, of the vast numbers of our Supporters he retains the goodwill of, so he says, with so little loss to himself …if after all this his whole ownership were forced after a while tamely to peter out, Duchatelets reputation for veracity of statement might be seriously impugned.
We may be sure, therefore, that he will continue as long as he has the potential for further financial gain to do so.
The gratitude of every supporter in the valley, in our Club, and indeed throughout the world, goes out to the Many protesters of different groups and affinities who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and occasional personal risk, are turning the tide of the Duchatelet ownership by their prowess and by their devotion.
Never in the field of football club ownership was so much owed by so many to so few.
All hearts go out to the protesters, whose brilliant actions we see with our own eyes day after day, but we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, some protesters travel far into Belgium, find their targets in the darkness by the highest navigational skill, aim their attacks, often under the heaviest fire, often with financial loss and physical damage, with deliberate, careful discrimination, and inflict shattering blows upon the whole of the technical and reputational structure of the Duchatelet ideal
A good many people have written to me to ask me to make on this occasion a fuller statement of our protest aims, and of the kind of club we wish to make after the war, than is contained in the very considerable declaration which was made early in the autumn.…
I do not think it would be wise at this moment, while the battle rages and the war is still perhaps not finally completed, to embark upon elaborate speculations about the future shape which should be given to the club… But before we can undertake the task of rebuilding we have not only to be convinced ourselves, but we have to convince all other countries that the Duchâtelet tyranny is going to be finally broken.
The right to guide the course of club history is the a noble prize of victory. We are still toiling up the hill; we have not yet reached the crest-line of it; we cannot survey the landscape or even imagine what its condition will be when that longed-for morning comes. The task which lies before us immediately is at once more practical, more simple and more stern.… For the rest, we have to gain the victory.
(With thanks to W. Churchill and those who fought particularly in the Second World War for which this speech was written)
Show the new owners what they’re buying into.
They may just bag a bargain if we go up
Full of rubbish? Of course it is.
The most offensive thing in ten years of reading Charlton Life? Wow! Just, WOW!
But I draw the line when some idiot tells me what a hero he is!
In the meantime.......still boycotting for me, but will be back at the first game after the sale.
Crikey, you've either not been here long or haven't read much :-O
When my grandkids ask what I did in the war, I'll answer, with some pride, that I stood up to the White Witch and fought the "good" fight both at home & on foreign shores, albeit not Narnia.
And when they look up at me with wonder in their big eyes, asking if I was wounded in battle, I'll tell them that there were times when Nanny's old heart was near to breaking; the sad sight of thousands of empty seats at our Valley home, the rift between club and supporters and the deepest cut of all, the animosity between fellow Addicks created by the actions of just TWO people....Bill Shakespeare would have had a field day with this scenario.
No medals to show for my part in the battle ....just severely knackered loins, "worn" as a badge of honour.
But the time is nigh for "all good men/women to come to the (aid of the) party".
The time for celebration is close at hand.....
...closely followed by the time for rebuilding this famous football club that is ingrained in ALL our hearts....together.
Boycotters, protesters, season ticket holders, match by match attendees, regime supporters etc etc etc. The minute our club changes hands, none of these will be of any consequence.
Before Duchatelet we were simply Addicks.
And we shall be Addicks again.
All for one and one for all with one purpose & one purpose only.
No prizes for stating the obvious.