Just saw him walking down Floyd Road away from the ground with security around him? Anyone else see this?
At about 2.20 he was walking into the east stand with a group of security. Assume he's just visiting different areas of the ground to meet people. Seemed in a good mood, laughing and joking with whoever he was with.
If anyone sees him again, I suggest laying one on him - he's THE biggest danger to this club at the moment. No strategy, no idea, no plan, no hope. We've signed an ABSOLUTE load of shite and that's putting it mildly. I pray that NJ is able to sort this out.
I mean we technically haven’t have we. We have signed proven players at this level. We just have no confidence. And are on a terrible run. Yes some of the loans haven’t been great but Ladapo is just out of form. The perms are good business and we are about to appoint a manager most of of us thought was out of reach. Stupid comment
While I’m not impressed with Scott’s performance at all, a “prominent Lifer” said something to me yesterday that reminded me we do not know at all who does what. I am not saying this to absolve Scott of blame, rather that he is not the only one and the fact that there are so many of them means there is a whole layer of them, all of whom seem to be rather pleased with themselves.
Someone above describes Scott as “sporting director”. I don’t know what his title is, but until yesterday I had completely forgotten about Simon Lenegan. According to said Lifer, Lenegan carries that title. What does he do? How do his “responsibilities” mesh with Scott’s?
What about Elliott? While his role appears to be creating stuff linked to his personal vision of “community club” it’s clear that he gives his views on the playing side, since Gavin Carter said he has been in his ear ( he put it more positively, but something about Paul Elliott doesn’ sit right with me).
Then we have Charlie Methven. He is working hard to look a lot less visible than he was at Sunderland. But as a personality he is more visible than the others to us as we have had hours of video evidence to pore over. He also, unlike at Sunderland seems to actually have his own money at risk (money from the sale of his shares at Sunderland that he never paid for by most accounts). Given all that, the idea that Charlie Methven will sit quietly and not stick his oar in is about as credible as the idea that Boris Johnson will publicly repent and become a monk.
And then we have Rodwell. Put simply, what is his role?
“Top-heavy management” is a generous description. The one possible way out of this is that Friedman and Bremer are probably experienced in spotting and taking the axe to such excesses. If indeed they got involved in getting shot of Appleton, that could come sooner rather than later.
I’m not going to quote @PragueAddick because of the long post but I think the roles are fairly defined.Just to clarify, I think jury is out on the SMT but I think people are concocting issues that don’t exist which doesn’t help with scrutiny.
Scott is Technical Director, he’s in charge of player recruitment, staff recruitment for both the senior team and youth teams and ensuring there’s a pathway for progression of players. He’s also in charge of contract negotiations etc.
Lenegan works for GFP, I think probably keeping an eye on Scott and I think he’s also making notes of what to do differently when buying another club for the group (no one has mentioned this but clearly inevitable)
Elliot is meant to be more ambassadorial but clearly wants more influence than he has but I think he cares about the club. Whether his ideas are any good is a different question.
Methven is clearly more than just a link between the boards, I don’t trust him.
Rodwell is supposed to oversee the non-footballing matters which is why it seems unclear to us. He doesn’t need to shout about that stuff.
There are definitely too many people involved but the ones actually employed by CAFC have defined roles. It’s the board above that is messy and they’re clearly struggling with the hands off approach, that in part could be down to the poor performance of Scott.
I’m hoping that Scott is on a relatively short-term, fixed contract. The man has been an abject failure and I can’t see him being here after the end of the season - nor should he be.
Does this bloke go to the games? Or is there a community meeting planned anytime soon?
This bloke has a lot to answer for, I want to hear how he explains what he does for Charlton.
He'll give a semi competent interview and have half the fanbse tugging themselves off over it.
I don't know why you have to keep slagging off fans all the time at end of posts, based on what a few people might have said about someone coming across in an interview. Even they do think someone may have come across well, doesn't mean they think are necessarily doing a good job or free from criticism.
There's thinking someone comes across well, and there's being taken in time and time again by the same old bullshit.
I’m not going to quote @PragueAddick because of the long post but I think the roles are fairly defined.Just to clarify, I think jury is out on the SMT but I think people are concocting issues that don’t exist which doesn’t help with scrutiny.
Scott is Technical Director, he’s in charge of player recruitment, staff recruitment for both the senior team and youth teams and ensuring there’s a pathway for progression of players. He’s also in charge of contract negotiations etc.
Lenegan works for GFP, I think probably keeping an eye on Scott and I think he’s also making notes of what to do differently when buying another club for the group (no one has mentioned this but clearly inevitable)
Elliot is meant to be more ambassadorial but clearly wants more influence than he has but I think he cares about the club. Whether his ideas are any good is a different question.
Methven is clearly more than just a link between the boards, I don’t trust him.
Rodwell is supposed to oversee the non-footballing matters which is why it seems unclear to us. He doesn’t need to shout about that stuff.
There are definitely too many people involved but the ones actually employed by CAFC have defined roles. It’s the board above that is messy and they’re clearly struggling with the hands off approach, that in part could be down to the poor performance of Scott.
Don’t forget Ed Warrick, the finance director who isn’t an accountant but by coincidence went to the same school as Methven.
@fenaddick thanks for your coherent reply. I have some questions, which should not be taken as arguing with you, just trying to make sure I, and everyone else understand better.
Re Lenegan your remarks imply that he is *not* on the club payroll and that his correct title is *Group* Sporting Director. Is that how you understand it?
Rodwell’s role may be misunderstood in part because he was the one who presented the hapless 8-8-8 thing to us. Admittedly he didnt seem to fully understand it himself, but that is not our fault, is it. I wonder who you think was involved in developing that?
If your perspective is accurate, then Scott is very exposed and deserves all the criticism coming his way. Are you quite sure he deserves it all and none of the others I name, do?
Finally I certainly ask myself what the total wage bill of that lot chargeable to CAFC is (Lenegan may or may not be included). As a % of CAFC revenue, I suspect that figure may be very high regardless of any positive things any of them lay claim to. If I were a “hedgie” type businessman, or any typical hard-nosed Yank for that matter, I’d be looking at that line on the P&L with a very baleful eye.
@fenaddick thanks for your coherent reply. I have some questions, which should not be taken as arguing with you, just trying to make sure I, and everyone else understand better.
Re Lenegan your remarks imply that he is *not* on the club payroll and that his correct title is *Group* Sporting Director. Is that how you understand it?
Rodwell’s role may be misunderstood in part because he was the one who presented the hapless 8-8-8 thing to us. Admittedly he didnt seem to fully understand it himself, but that is not our fault, is it. I wonder who you think was involved in developing that?
If your perspective is accurate, then Scott is very exposed and deserves all the criticism coming his way. Are you quite sure he deserves it all and none of the others I name, do?
Finally I certainly ask myself what the total wage bill of that lot chargeable to CAFC is (Lenegan may or may not be included). As a % of CAFC revenue, I suspect that figure may be very high regardless of any positive things any of them lay claim to. If I were a “hedgie” type businessman, or any typical hard-nosed Yank for that matter, I’d be looking at that line on the P&L with a very baleful eye.
As far as I’m aware yes, Scott has described him as “the sporting director for our ownership group”. Obviously they were just words but it’s what I’m basing it off.
I think Scott is certainly the one who is most clearly underperforming. Where I do have sympathy with him is that he’s having to build a whole new structure, I don’t think we really had many scouts under previous regimes so I’d hope he’s quietly building those networks. I also think the budget in the summer was poor and held him back. His January window and managerial appointments don’t appear to be up to scratch but in the case of the window we need to give the players a few games to get used to new surroundings etc.
Personally, I hope someone (most likely to be Lenegan) is looking to see who else is available to replace Scott.
@fenaddick thanks for your coherent reply. I have some questions, which should not be taken as arguing with you, just trying to make sure I, and everyone else understand better.
Re Lenegan your remarks imply that he is *not* on the club payroll and that his correct title is *Group* Sporting Director. Is that how you understand it?
Rodwell’s role may be misunderstood in part because he was the one who presented the hapless 8-8-8 thing to us. Admittedly he didnt seem to fully understand it himself, but that is not our fault, is it. I wonder who you think was involved in developing that?
If your perspective is accurate, then Scott is very exposed and deserves all the criticism coming his way. Are you quite sure he deserves it all and none of the others I name, do?
Finally I certainly ask myself what the total wage bill of that lot chargeable to CAFC is (Lenegan may or may not be included). As a % of CAFC revenue, I suspect that figure may be very high regardless of any positive things any of them lay claim to. If I were a “hedgie” type businessman, or any typical hard-nosed Yank for that matter, I’d be looking at that line on the P&L with a very baleful eye.
Reliable source had Warwick, Rodwell and Scott on £10k per month when they first came and TS still owned the club.
No idea what they are paid now. That was TS's money so maybe the new owners are less generous/gullible.
I agree with @fenaaddick that some of roles are clear and not I would say that unusual.
Rodwell is the CEO Warwick is the Finance Director Scott is the Technical director so oversees all the men's and women's football activities including recruitment, sports science, etc.
Most football clubs now will have someone in these roles, even at our level but certainly above.
Whether they are performing well is open to debate. Without knowing the key performances indictors for Rodwell and Warwick we can't say but I would guess their roles are to maximize income and efficiency on the non-football side either by cutting costs and/or by increasing commercial and ticket income. We don't have figures for sponsorship but a few new names have appeared on the display boards.
We can see with our own eyes how tickets sales are doing. We are averaging a bit over 12K IIRC which is 4th highest in league 1 but fair below our potential at this level. Lack of success is clearly a factor here but even if we were 10th I doubt the attendances would be much higher. And yes, bums on seats don't match official numbers but that has always been the case as ST holders are counted regardless as those seats have been sold. I don't have figures for freebies but there seems to be a lot less noise about those, perhaps because Rodwell isn't a fan of them. It's another debate we don't need to repeat again here.
As for Scott, the evidence is much more damning. The football side has been a disaster as we all know, the managerial appointments have failed and the recruitment was poor in the summer. Jury still out on the recruitment and sales in the last window.
If that was all Scott's doing then he has to take the blame. It was the managers and players losing games but he oversees this aspect of the club.
But was it all his doing?
We've moved on as many players as we've brought in suggesting that the books needed to be, if not balanced, at least kept in line with budgets. Methven has said that his role is to keep the club within FFP regulations so he has an input on signings either directly or indirectly. Who else is influencing who the managers should be? Lenegan and Methven are both Oxford Utd men so would have known Appleton and the good job he did there so seems unlikely they did not give that input.
Methven probably doesn't have a role in the day to day running of the club. He's not negotiating with suppliers or dealing with blocked toilets, that is for Rodwell, but he is around three or four days a week, he's at games, he talks a lot about what is going on, both on the record and off, so it no absentee landlord.
And that is no surprise as this is all his baby. He put the deal together, he picked the management team and he sold the idea to the investors.
And he owns shares. Some people think he spent his own money on these, others that he was given £700k of shares as his fee for brokering the deal. I don't know, but either way he has skin in the game.
Lenegan is different and it is interesting that only in the last fortnight has his name come to prominence. Yet, he has been around since SE7 and GFP came in. Clearly he was having his say on who the new manager should be and was, with Scott, said to be the one that delayed the sacking of Appleton.
He was known to Methven before via Oxford Utd but works for, on paper at least, Global Football partners as Sporting Director. It's a reasonable assumption that this is role not just for Charlton but perhaps other yet to be bought franchises.
Gavin Carter said on the CAST interview that he'd look at why the breakdown of share holdings hasn't been revealed.
My understanding was that in was 23% for Brener, Friedman and Rosenfeld given them nearly 70% so, as a block vote, control of GFP but without anyone of them being the sole decision maker.
Brener and Friedman were said to have intervened in the Jones appointment (WIOTOS) but not Rosenfeld. Not sure if that is significant or not. Probably not.
So for me some of the structure is clear, some of it not.
I don't think they are "chancers" either. They UK directors all have backgrounds in football.
I do think it is fair to challenge their performance and competence based on the outcomes they have achieved.
The counter argument, ably expressed by Gavin Carter who is both a fan and an investor, is that is takes time to turn around a failing organisation.
I agree. It will take time and we won't become a well run, well structured, high performing club again overnight.
It will take years but so far we seem to be going backwards, not forwards.
Agree with a lot of what @Henry Irving” has said above. Interested that Scott deals with the women’s side too as I couldn’t remember that or not, I don’t know how involved he is as I think they have a GM too but the women’s team is definitely successful at the moment.
I also don’t think they’re chancers just that our fans are scarred. We have had a lot of chancers recently so it’s understandable that when the team underperforms people think those in charge are chancers.
I’d like to see a highly regarded chief scout/similar role come in to help on the transfer front. Everything seems too scatter gun and I think an extra person to work out strategy would be good
Andy Scott and the others talk a very good game, I believed it initially like many others did mainly due to enjoying hearing someone sound like a football person after the years of nonsense under previous ownership structures but I don't believe the current set of decision makers are up to it.
Real success will hopefully come after the serious money men sideline or replace them, that may already be happening if the rumours of Jones being the owners choice are true.
Andy Scott’s interview pre season was spot on and I agreed and still agree with what he said now (loser mentality around that club that’s got to change).
Problem is he’s somehow, with what appears to be an increased budget, added to the loser mentality! My question is how long do you give someone in his role? I understand that at management level you can get fired these days for a few defeats in a row, but at strategic level is that the right move? Perhaps it is I’m genuinely asking the question because I don’t know.
No quote from Scott on the manager announcement, is he on his way out?
Doubt he's on his way just yet but he will be under scrutiny I imagine. If the "manager" title is not just semantics I would imagine he will be given a chance to show how he does in an altered role but probably on last chance saloon.
I'm not arguing that he "deserves" said chance BTW. Just stating my belief that expecting him to go anywhere is premature.
We do like to have a villain don't we. I suppose Scott is as good as anyone for that but it's a bit much sometimes. We don't actually know exactly who does what as has been said but I also think that as is often the case on the pitch, it takes time for a system for bed into place. Our signings on paper have been better this window. They were better in the summer than they were the window before that. We've seen with the signing of May, then with the January signings and now the appointment of Jones that this ownership will shift their preferences in the face of failure or convincing advice. It does make me think that all this talk of running Scott out of town could set us back more than help us. Does Jones want to come in and be faced with an inexperienced brand new setup bringing in players next season or a group that has its system in place and has learned from its mistakes? I dunno, maybe we should keep him just because ever since Roland came in we absolutely have to have someone to despise and it may as well be Scott in the background rather than the manager or a player.
We do like to have a villain don't we. I suppose Scott is as good as anyone for that but it's a bit much sometimes. We don't actually know exactly who does what as has been said but I also think that as is often the case on the pitch, it takes time for a system for bed into place. Our signings on paper have been better this window. They were better in the summer than they were the window before that. We've seen with the signing of May, then with the January signings and now the appointment of Jones that this ownership will shift their preferences in the face of failure or convincing advice. It does make me think that all this talk of running Scott out of town could set us back more than help us. Does Jones want to come in and be faced with an inexperienced brand new setup bringing in players next season or a group that has its system in place and has learned from its mistakes? I dunno, maybe we should keep him just because ever since Roland came in we absolutely have to have someone to despise and it may as well be Scott in the background rather than the manager or a player.
The fact you can only name one signing from the summer says it all really.
We do like to have a villain don't we. I suppose Scott is as good as anyone for that but it's a bit much sometimes. We don't actually know exactly who does what as has been said but I also think that as is often the case on the pitch, it takes time for a system for bed into place. Our signings on paper have been better this window. They were better in the summer than they were the window before that. We've seen with the signing of May, then with the January signings and now the appointment of Jones that this ownership will shift their preferences in the face of failure or convincing advice. It does make me think that all this talk of running Scott out of town could set us back more than help us. Does Jones want to come in and be faced with an inexperienced brand new setup bringing in players next season or a group that has its system in place and has learned from its mistakes? I dunno, maybe we should keep him just because ever since Roland came in we absolutely have to have someone to despise and it may as well be Scott in the background rather than the manager or a player.
The fact you can only name one signing from the summer says it all really.
He was the only one I intended to name because he was an example of someone the ownership apparently didn't want because of his low resale value, but signed him anyway after being convinced of his value. I was talking about the ownership's willingness to change their initial plan rather than the idiotic stubbornness we've seen with some of our last few owners
Scott does good presentations and comms. Little evidence of making astute footballing decisions. If the Methven+ plan is making astute football decisions that then does not require significant investment then Scott has failed on that metric, so far.
Charlie Methven said in his interview with The Charlton Dossier that he is (or would be) investing his own money, and made quite a big deal of it (his answer to the first question) :
I suppose it is possible that something changed when the deal was actually closed but unless anyone has anything concrete to disprove that, I’d be inclined to believe him. As I said, he would have some cash because he had a share in Sunderland which was bought out for a decent price. And he goes on to say that because its a relatively large proportion of his wealth compared to the other guys, he’s going to be active in safeguarding it. I’d be inclined to believe that too. How exactly that plays out in the daily drama, we don’t know.
Comments
Someone above describes Scott as “sporting director”. I don’t know what his title is, but until yesterday I had completely forgotten about Simon Lenegan. According to said Lifer, Lenegan carries that title. What does he do? How do his “responsibilities” mesh with Scott’s?
Then we have Charlie Methven. He is working hard to look a lot less visible than he was at Sunderland. But as a personality he is more visible than the others to us as we have had hours of video evidence to pore over. He also, unlike at Sunderland seems to actually have his own money at risk (money from the sale of his shares at Sunderland that he never paid for by most accounts). Given all that, the idea that Charlie Methven will sit quietly and not stick his oar in is about as credible as the idea that Boris Johnson will publicly repent and become a monk.
Scott is Technical Director, he’s in charge of player recruitment, staff recruitment for both the senior team and youth teams and ensuring there’s a pathway for progression of players. He’s also in charge of contract negotiations etc.
Lenegan works for GFP, I think probably keeping an eye on Scott and I think he’s also making notes of what to do differently when buying another club for the group (no one has mentioned this but clearly inevitable)
Elliot is meant to be more ambassadorial but clearly wants more influence than he has but I think he cares about the club. Whether his ideas are any good is a different question.
Methven is clearly more than just a link between the boards, I don’t trust him.
Rodwell is supposed to oversee the non-footballing matters which is why it seems unclear to us. He doesn’t need to shout about that stuff.
There are definitely too many people involved but the ones actually employed by CAFC have defined roles. It’s the board above that is messy and they’re clearly struggling with the hands off approach, that in part could be down to the poor performance of Scott.
Re Lenegan your remarks imply that he is *not* on the club payroll and that his correct title is *Group* Sporting Director. Is that how you understand it?
Rodwell’s role may be misunderstood in part because he was the one who presented the hapless 8-8-8 thing to us. Admittedly he didnt seem to fully understand it himself, but that is not our fault, is it. I wonder who you think was involved in developing that?
Finally I certainly ask myself what the total wage bill of that lot chargeable to CAFC is (Lenegan may or may not be included). As a % of CAFC revenue, I suspect that figure may be very high regardless of any positive things any of them lay claim to. If I were a “hedgie” type businessman, or any typical hard-nosed Yank for that matter, I’d be looking at that line on the P&L with a very baleful eye.
Reinventing the wheel again. Wheels that don't turn.
I think Scott is certainly the one who is most clearly underperforming. Where I do have sympathy with him is that he’s having to build a whole new structure, I don’t think we really had many scouts under previous regimes so I’d hope he’s quietly building those networks. I also think the budget in the summer was poor and held him back. His January window and managerial appointments don’t appear to be up to scratch but in the case of the window we need to give the players a few games to get used to new surroundings etc.
Personally, I hope someone (most likely to be Lenegan) is looking to see who else is available to replace Scott.
No idea what they are paid now. That was TS's money so maybe the new owners are less generous/gullible.
I agree with @fenaaddick that some of roles are clear and not I would say that unusual.
Rodwell is the CEO
Warwick is the Finance Director
Scott is the Technical director so oversees all the men's and women's football activities including recruitment, sports science, etc.
Most football clubs now will have someone in these roles, even at our level but certainly above.
Whether they are performing well is open to debate. Without knowing the key performances indictors for Rodwell and Warwick we can't say but I would guess their roles are to maximize income and efficiency on the non-football side either by cutting costs and/or by increasing commercial and ticket income. We don't have figures for sponsorship but a few new names have appeared on the display boards.
We can see with our own eyes how tickets sales are doing. We are averaging a bit over 12K IIRC which is 4th highest in league 1 but fair below our potential at this level. Lack of success is clearly a factor here but even if we were 10th I doubt the attendances would be much higher. And yes, bums on seats don't match official numbers but that has always been the case as ST holders are counted regardless as those seats have been sold. I don't have figures for freebies but there seems to be a lot less noise about those, perhaps because Rodwell isn't a fan of them. It's another debate we don't need to repeat again here.
As for Scott, the evidence is much more damning. The football side has been a disaster as we all know, the managerial appointments have failed and the recruitment was poor in the summer. Jury still out on the recruitment and sales in the last window.
If that was all Scott's doing then he has to take the blame. It was the managers and players losing games but he oversees this aspect of the club.
But was it all his doing?
We've moved on as many players as we've brought in suggesting that the books needed to be, if not balanced, at least kept in line with budgets. Methven has said that his role is to keep the club within FFP regulations so he has an input on signings either directly or indirectly. Who else is influencing who the managers should be? Lenegan and Methven are both Oxford Utd men so would have known Appleton and the good job he did there so seems unlikely they did not give that input.
Methven probably doesn't have a role in the day to day running of the club. He's not negotiating with suppliers or dealing with blocked toilets, that is for Rodwell, but he is around three or four days a week, he's at games, he talks a lot about what is going on, both on the record and off, so it no absentee landlord.
And that is no surprise as this is all his baby. He put the deal together, he picked the management team and he sold the idea to the investors.
And he owns shares. Some people think he spent his own money on these, others that he was given £700k of shares as his fee for brokering the deal. I don't know, but either way he has skin in the game.
Lenegan is different and it is interesting that only in the last fortnight has his name come to prominence. Yet, he has been around since SE7 and GFP came in. Clearly he was having his say on who the new manager should be and was, with Scott, said to be the one that delayed the sacking of Appleton.
He was known to Methven before via Oxford Utd but works for, on paper at least, Global Football partners as Sporting Director. It's a reasonable assumption that this is role not just for Charlton but perhaps other yet to be bought franchises.
Gavin Carter said on the CAST interview that he'd look at why the breakdown of share holdings hasn't been revealed.
My understanding was that in was 23% for Brener, Friedman and Rosenfeld given them nearly 70% so, as a block vote, control of GFP but without anyone of them being the sole decision maker.
Brener and Friedman were said to have intervened in the Jones appointment (WIOTOS) but not Rosenfeld. Not sure if that is significant or not. Probably not.
So for me some of the structure is clear, some of it not.
I don't think they are "chancers" either. They UK directors all have backgrounds in football.
I do think it is fair to challenge their performance and competence based on the outcomes they have achieved.
The counter argument, ably expressed by Gavin Carter who is both a fan and an investor, is that is takes time to turn around a failing organisation.
I agree. It will take time and we won't become a well run, well structured, high performing club again overnight.
It will take years but so far we seem to be going backwards, not forwards.
I also don’t think they’re chancers just that our fans are scarred. We have had a lot of chancers recently so it’s understandable that when the team underperforms people think those in charge are chancers.
I’d like to see a highly regarded chief scout/similar role come in to help on the transfer front. Everything seems too scatter gun and I think an extra person to work out strategy would be good
Real success will hopefully come after the serious money men sideline or replace them, that may already be happening if the rumours of Jones being the owners choice are true.
Problem is he’s somehow, with what appears to be an increased budget, added to the loser mentality! My question is how long do you give someone in his role? I understand that at management level you can get fired these days for a few defeats in a row, but at strategic level is that the right move? Perhaps it is I’m genuinely asking the question because I don’t know.
Not happy with heading player recruitment, he now wants to show us what he can do with a ball !
I'm not arguing that he "deserves" said chance BTW. Just stating my belief that expecting him to go anywhere is premature.
https://thecharltondossier.com/charlie-methven-exclusive-interview/