WOW don't wanna sound patronising but sorry I have done all that when I was semi pro, having to travel couple of hours a couple of times a week to train for two hours then hoping I would get a game midweek or on a saturday, I got paid NOTHING, paid for my own expenses, I think she should be thanking CAFC for giving her the opportunity to play for a club like ours & at a decent level. Fine it has not been handled very well, but there are FAR better players than her that have never had the opportunity to play at a higher level.
you didnt sound patronising you did sound a bit bitter tho...
I think you playing semi pro and her playing at top level women's football is completely different.. you know as a semi pro where you stand but she has actually made it to the top level of the woman's game and probably didnt expect the team to go out of existence, else why would she have signed to play for them.
I'm much heartened by the ruthlessness the board have shown in axing the women's team - about time we shed all the peripheral nonsense that does nothing to enhance the main aim & purpose of this football club - to have a succesfull (mens) team playing at the highest level.
Is part of the reason we ended up in the mess we did this season - the fact that the board took it's eye off the ball by getting involved in all kinds of activities that are not essential to the success of CAFC? We might have gained lots of meaningless but nice PR - we didn't get enough points.
You only have to listen to any management guru or even watch Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmare to realise there are a few key things to being successfull - concentrate at what you are good on & keep things simple.
Getting rid of the women's team is an excellent first step in streamlining the club & focussing on the important things.
As much as I feel sorry for the ladies, you do have to put it into perspective that any commercial enterprise will shed jobs / depts when / if they the overall organisation has underperformed and therefore has suffered a drop in revenue.
Yes they have performed well but they are a "subsidiary" of the main club, not the core money earner.
Are the club expected to allow them to carry on at the detriment of where the majority of the revenue comes from?
Take Ford for example. Huge company, steeped in history and achievement. Currently struggling big time. Do they focus their efforts on ensuring niche businesses such as Jaguar are successful ,or focus their efforts on getting their bread and butter business (Ford) back into profitability?
Others sticking the boot in...http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8742_2452973,00.html
Dissapointed for them but not surprised, they are almost entirely funded by Charlton outside of the US the female game has little credability, sponsors or media coverage, games are poorely attended and if i'm honest the games i've seen are awful.
As Charlton Dan says you look after your core competence's and leave the rest.
Charlton Are Forgetting Their Roots...
Posted 27/06/07 16:08EmailPrintSave
Across the past decade Charlton have often been held up as an example of how to run a football club, not least in these pages. A certain amount of repentance is going on right now. Faith was shaken by the Iain Dowie and Les Reed episodes, but it has been hit more severely by the news of the last few days.
The decision to abandon women's football from top to bottom as a result of the men's team's relegation from the Premiership does rather more than leave the players in the lurch. It strikes at the heart of what made Charlton special since the beginnings of the 'Back to the Valley' campaign two decades ago.
Younger readers may not know that Charlton went into exile in the mid-Eighties
and played in the top flight as tenants of Crystal Palace, then after relegation
in 1990, they pitched up at Upton Park. The old Valley, in theory at one time possessing the largest capacity of any Football League ground at 66,000, had fallen into disrepair and become uneconomic. It was left to rot while the team battled for life elsewhere.
While diehard supporters wanted a return home, local politicians questioned
whether they would want the club to come back. This was a time when saying
"football" in a word association game would bring the reply "hooligans" far too
often for comfort.
It took the fielding of candidates in local elections for the Valley Party to make clear the depth of desire for the club to come home, but actions speak louder even than votes. When at last the chance to begin again was granted, volunteers were called for to begin clearing the wreckage of the now-derelict ground. The response was phenomenal: work expected to take a month was done in a day.
The praise for Charlton down the years has not simply been about financial prudence and keeping faith in a manager despite struggles and relegation. The praise has come from admiration of the sense of common purpose that made the club the embodiment of that overworked phrase, 'football in the community'.
Everything that was achieved at The Valley was based on trust. The club have built themselves up on the basis of their place at the heart of a community.
The women's set-up has cost money, but has surely helped cement the club in their surprisingly remote corner of the capital. By discarding that set-up the board are saving money but alienating those involved in the women's game; those who know them; those who believe that the grassroots work, giving young local girls the chance to play the game, is exactly the kind the club should be doing; and those who aren't that bothered either way but thought Charlton weren't the kind of club to turn their backs on anyone just like that.
Plenty of Charlton fans won't have given too much attention to the women's team and others will be regretful but feel that the men's team's efforts to get back in the Premiership should take precedence. But for many this decision will have not so much eroded as demolished the sense of trust that meant, in a plc era, that Charlton really were a club.
A little hypocritical when you says things like "The old Valley, in theory at one time possessing the largest capacity of any Football League ground at 66,000, had fallen into disrepair and become uneconomic. It was left to rot while the team battled for life elsewhere" and "The praise for Charlton down the years has not simply been about financial prudence" and then go onto criticize this same board for "financial prudence" that has lead to the lose of jobs.........
What are we supposed to do put the clubs financial stability at risk just to placate the media? C**ts!!
I understand that she is upset etc, but I do think that her comments are out of order.
To criticise the board for driving big cars when they have contributed millions to the club and never drawn a salary is a bit rich. she also mentions how hard they all work at something which is a "hobby" in their spare time. The other alternative in saving money would be to sack people with mortgages and children who rely on the salary as their only income. She is lucky to have to have had the opportunity and, as someone said, the lot of a conference palyer is likely to be similar.
I think that it is wrong that the team was axed - the cost of the women's team over the last five years has probably been less than the cost of Kevin Lisbie, and I have clear views on who has contributed more to the club.
I suspect that the women palyers were not employees as such, so it is more a matter of withdrawing the funding from an enterprise than sacking anyone.
[cite]Posted By: Captain Haddock[/cite]I understand that she is upset etc, but I do think that her comments are out of order.
To criticise the board for driving big cars when they have contributed millions to the club and never drawn a salary is a bit rich. she also mentions how hard they all work at something which is a "hobby" in their spare time. The other alternative in saving money would be to sack people with mortgages and children who rely on the salary as their only income. She is lucky to have to have had the opportunity and, as someone said, the lot of a conference palyer is likely to be similar.
I think that it is wrong that the team was axed - the cost of the women's team over the last five years has probably been less than the cost of Kevin Lisbie, and I have clear views on who has contributed more to the club.
I suspect that the women palyers were not employees as such, so it is more a matter of withdrawing the funding from an enterprise than sacking anyone.
I agree with you CH. We all understand why she and others are angry about it but not only is her comment about the board unjustified, what also makes her look pretty daft is that since the weekend the club have backtracked somewhat by Reg saying that they're seeking a sponsor to keep it going.
When I heard about this at the weekend I intended to write a very strong letter/email to the club about it but, realising it was at the 'unofficial' stage, I thought it better to wait until it was announced officially by the club. I think it might've been a good idea for the likes of Stoney, Murphy and others to have done the same - all this premature vitriole does undermine their case a bit.
To be fair mate they announced at the time that it would be closed unless a sponsor was found. Its only that the media failed to report this last bit that it now looks like a backtrack
Comments
Grapevine 49
"Maybe if the men's team played for the reasons we played for then we all would not be in this situation."
That sentence probably shouldn't end up in an article about a womens team..
Original I did think this wss about the idiot over at White hart lane thou
I thought that, and expected it to be the poisoned dwarf spouting off about being linked in a part exchange deal for Benty.
I think you playing semi pro and her playing at top level women's football is completely different.. you know as a semi pro where you stand but she has actually made it to the top level of the woman's game and probably didnt expect the team to go out of existence, else why would she have signed to play for them.
think everyone needs to have a deep breath and reassess what is important and what is not.
I hope they can continue but you'd hope the players would keep their counsel whilst a sponsor is being looked for....
Out of interest, how many trophies have they actually won?
Is part of the reason we ended up in the mess we did this season - the fact that the board took it's eye off the ball by getting involved in all kinds of activities that are not essential to the success of CAFC? We might have gained lots of meaningless but nice PR - we didn't get enough points.
You only have to listen to any management guru or even watch Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmare to realise there are a few key things to being successfull - concentrate at what you are good on & keep things simple.
Getting rid of the women's team is an excellent first step in streamlining the club & focussing on the important things.
Im with you ..... that money has already paid for moutakill .....
Yes they have performed well but they are a "subsidiary" of the main club, not the core money earner.
Are the club expected to allow them to carry on at the detriment of where the majority of the revenue comes from?
Take Ford for example. Huge company, steeped in history and achievement. Currently struggling big time. Do they focus their efforts on ensuring niche businesses such as Jaguar are successful ,or focus their efforts on getting their bread and butter business (Ford) back into profitability?
No brainer as far as Im concerned.
Dissapointed for them but not surprised, they are almost entirely funded by Charlton outside of the US the female game has little credability, sponsors or media coverage, games are poorely attended and if i'm honest the games i've seen are awful.
As Charlton Dan says you look after your core competence's and leave the rest.
link don't work. go to:
http://www.football365.com/
and halfway down is 'Charlton are forgetting what their roots'
Posted 27/06/07 16:08EmailPrintSave
Across the past decade Charlton have often been held up as an example of how to run a football club, not least in these pages. A certain amount of repentance is going on right now. Faith was shaken by the Iain Dowie and Les Reed episodes, but it has been hit more severely by the news of the last few days.
The decision to abandon women's football from top to bottom as a result of the men's team's relegation from the Premiership does rather more than leave the players in the lurch. It strikes at the heart of what made Charlton special since the beginnings of the 'Back to the Valley' campaign two decades ago.
Younger readers may not know that Charlton went into exile in the mid-Eighties
and played in the top flight as tenants of Crystal Palace, then after relegation
in 1990, they pitched up at Upton Park. The old Valley, in theory at one time possessing the largest capacity of any Football League ground at 66,000, had fallen into disrepair and become uneconomic. It was left to rot while the team battled for life elsewhere.
While diehard supporters wanted a return home, local politicians questioned
whether they would want the club to come back. This was a time when saying
"football" in a word association game would bring the reply "hooligans" far too
often for comfort.
It took the fielding of candidates in local elections for the Valley Party to make clear the depth of desire for the club to come home, but actions speak louder even than votes. When at last the chance to begin again was granted, volunteers were called for to begin clearing the wreckage of the now-derelict ground. The response was phenomenal: work expected to take a month was done in a day.
The praise for Charlton down the years has not simply been about financial prudence and keeping faith in a manager despite struggles and relegation. The praise has come from admiration of the sense of common purpose that made the club the embodiment of that overworked phrase, 'football in the community'.
Everything that was achieved at The Valley was based on trust. The club have built themselves up on the basis of their place at the heart of a community.
The women's set-up has cost money, but has surely helped cement the club in their surprisingly remote corner of the capital. By discarding that set-up the board are saving money but alienating those involved in the women's game; those who know them; those who believe that the grassroots work, giving young local girls the chance to play the game, is exactly the kind the club should be doing; and those who aren't that bothered either way but thought Charlton weren't the kind of club to turn their backs on anyone just like that.
Plenty of Charlton fans won't have given too much attention to the women's team and others will be regretful but feel that the men's team's efforts to get back in the Premiership should take precedence. But for many this decision will have not so much eroded as demolished the sense of trust that meant, in a plc era, that Charlton really were a club.
What are we supposed to do put the clubs financial stability at risk just to placate the media? C**ts!!
To criticise the board for driving big cars when they have contributed millions to the club and never drawn a salary is a bit rich. she also mentions how hard they all work at something which is a "hobby" in their spare time. The other alternative in saving money would be to sack people with mortgages and children who rely on the salary as their only income. She is lucky to have to have had the opportunity and, as someone said, the lot of a conference palyer is likely to be similar.
I think that it is wrong that the team was axed - the cost of the women's team over the last five years has probably been less than the cost of Kevin Lisbie, and I have clear views on who has contributed more to the club.
I suspect that the women palyers were not employees as such, so it is more a matter of withdrawing the funding from an enterprise than sacking anyone.
I agree with you CH. We all understand why she and others are angry about it but not only is her comment about the board unjustified, what also makes her look pretty daft is that since the weekend the club have backtracked somewhat by Reg saying that they're seeking a sponsor to keep it going.
When I heard about this at the weekend I intended to write a very strong letter/email to the club about it but, realising it was at the 'unofficial' stage, I thought it better to wait until it was announced officially by the club. I think it might've been a good idea for the likes of Stoney, Murphy and others to have done the same - all this premature vitriole does undermine their case a bit.
high impact sports
They'd probably only want to sponsor once every four weeks though. Sorry.