[quote][cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]it does in mine and did then too. different times mate.[/quote]
But what would they have acheived in getting the game abandoned. A heavy fine for a cash strapped club. Maybe points deducted in a promotion season. Plus the game replayed, not at the Valley but it would have been another evening trip to Sellout. I don't understand how those few who did try to break the goal can be described as heroes.
"But what would they have acheived in getting the game abandoned. A heavy fine for a cash strapped club. Maybe points deducted in a promotion season. Plus the game replayed, not at the Valley but it would have been another evening trip to Sellout. I don't understand how those few who did try to break the goal can be described as heroes."
I'm sure anyone around at that time can remember not only the sadness but also the anger. At the time we were only a few games into the season and no-one really expected us to mount a serious promotion campaign. There wasn't that kind of optimism at Charlton then.
It was too short notice to organise a proper protest, so in doing what they did, they at least they did something. Heroes is probably too strong a word but they certainly weren't vandals.
At the time we were only a few games into the season and no-one really expected us to mount a serious promotion campaign. There wasn't that kind of optimism at Charlton then.
Ahem...... I had an each way bet for us to go up after seeing the singings of George Shipley, Mark Reid, John Pender, John Pearson and of course a Mr John Humphrey. Hardly ever bet on us before or since apart from the odd £ at the ground when I have a hunch. I remember flashing my betting slip around proudly on the way back from Carlisle :-)
doesn't feel that long ago until you start thinking about what's happened in between then it seems a lifetime ago....
cos back then i thought we'd never play in the top flight of english football and it happened under sir lennie and the legend curbs.....
If Airman Brown doesn't mind me quoting from his fantastic book:
'In the days leading up to the game, fans broke into the ground overnight and daubed slogans on the terraces and buildings, attacking both Gliksten and Fryer. But still the plaintive plea "Keep football here" went unheeded.
And so, on Sept 21st, 1985, The Valley's 66-year career as the home of Charlton Athletic came, apparently, to an end. The ground had seen many great occasions, and certainly far better matches, but it had never known a more poisonous atmosphere.
Anger, sadness and above all bewilderment hung obstinately in the air. A pre-match ceremony introducing some of the club's most famous sons coincided with the first of many pitch invasions, this one culminating in the laying of wreaths on the centre circle. The football itself proved so marginal to proceedings that its doubtful many people would have noticed if the teams had stayed in the dressing room.
Later it would be said by some the protests were muted, but it would be more accurate to say that they were not organised. In this respect the supporters club failed its members lamentably, because as a body the fans might quite easily of prevented the match from taking place. They could of watched in stony silence. They could even of sat down in the roads around the ground and refused to enter. However, no one seemed prepared to take the lead, so instead it was only a shambles of discontent.
But protests there were. Before kick-off, a group of a hundred or so fans invaded the East Terrace, and sat down in the middle of it until they were gently but firmly shepherded by police. Throughout the match, a large section of the 8,858 crowd persisted in explaining to Fryer precisely where he could stick his Selhurst Park.
The next pitch invasion came during half-time, delaying the resumption of play by nearly ten minutes. Wave after wave of young men clambered over the low railing in front of the terrace that divided the main stand with the Covered End, appealing by gesture for the fans behind the goal to join them. The sheer weight of their numbers overwhelmed the efforts of the police to restrain them. The more conservative patrons of the seats declined to join them, perhaps because they were prevented from doing so by the formidible fence. Instead they showed their support by applauding, and chanting "We're proud of you, Charlton".
When the pitch had finally been cleared the game resumed, but still the crowd chanted its slogans. "We hate Palace" echoed around the old ground, a reminder that the directors had further compounded the folly of leaving by choosing the wrong alternative venue.
When the final whistle went, the players and officials fled as if for their lives, and now the fans, young and old, poured onto the pitch and the protest began in earnest. But it was much, much too late. The directors had left their places and the chants of the angry crowd were directed only at empty seats.
My mind, like the crowd, was a confusion of emotions. Most of all, however, i was simply frustrated that the directors could not, or would not, see what was blatently obvious to everyone else. Namely that what they were proposing to do simply could not work. It would not fail just because of the chaotic South London traffic system, it would fail because Charlton Athletic and The Valley were one and the same thing. It was playing in Floyd Road, SE7, that gave the club its identity and the team its legitimacy in the eyes of the supporters.
Take that away and eventually you would have nothing but a gang of mercenaries in red shirts'
On the subject of Directors/owners of the club, I met Michael Gliksten last year, always remember as a fan having nothing but contempt for him, but after meeting him, feel very differently. I know it was his family who took a lot of money out of the club in the 50's when we should of been developing the ground, but you could tell that his heart was in CAFC, didnt have time to speak to him for long, but he obviously still had a lot of affection for the club and regrets not going back much since he ended his relationship, as he feels he would not be welcome.
Interesting piece from Steve Dowman about Michael Gliksten.
Having inherited the club in the early/mid 60's from his father and uncle, Gliksten was still quite younga t the time. He gradually became a figure of contempt as the 70's progressed - mainly due to lack of investment in the club and a perceived lack of interest on his part. And believe me, the decay was becoming evident - occasionally being relieved with patching the crumbling concrete of the huge East Terrace and a splash of red paint on the rusting corrugated iron fabric of the grandstand and the covered end.
About 1979 though, Gliksten did seem to make one last effort. The traditional 1920's style character roof of the stand was replaced with a utilitarian design and the Jimmy Seed stand was built behind the then uncovered end.
The team promptly got relegated to Division 3.
Mike Bailey got the team promoted back to Division 2 at the first attempt and Gliksten hung on for a season or so before selling the club to Mark Hulyer - but keeping ownership of the ground.
And that's when a whole new series of problems arose culminating in the winding up order of 1984, the subsequent last minute reprieve and new ownership by Sunleys - and of course, the abandonment of the Valley.
Sunleys were not going to put any investment into the ground if they couldn't own it.
And at that time, Gliksten still owned The Valley and was considered very much one of the villains of the piece.
I was sitting in the South Stand (Jimmy Seed Stand) that day amongst the stoke fans. Can't for the life of me remember why my old man took me and my brothers in that part of the ground that day. I was only 7 years old at the time and have very vague mermories of the game it's self. I remember digging up the grass after the game and being so young not really understanding why we were moving. Quite ironic that for the first game back at the Valley against PFC I was sitting in the South Stand again.
I was there. Rick's piece is truly humbling. As an aside, can you still get that book because I lost my copy, and would love to own it again.
The game was irrelevent, and the atmosphere being described as poisonous and a shambles of discontent are what my memories are. I was on the pitch after the game and too took home some turf and planted it in my Mum's garden. It died not long after and I took this as a bad sign, glad I was wrong.
As for Gliksten, I grew up hating the bloke, probably influenced by my Dad. His father was probably the real villian though, it only needed the slightest investment in the 50's to push us into the title challenging team but it never came and the role of Fryer in our history is always a good one to debate.
The idiots comment did him no favours though, and there is an argument that both Hulyer and Gliksten were bigger fans of the club.
[cite]Posted By: ChicagoAddick[/cite]As for Gliksten, I grew up hating the bloke, probably influenced by my Dad. His father was probably the real villian though, it only needed the slightest investment in the 50's to push us into the title challenging team
did the charlton board turn down the opportunity to sign sir stanley matthews?
from meeting MG I can say his heart is definitely in the club and that he would, in his own words, 'love to come back to the club (only as a viewer, not in any financial capacity) but felt there was too much hatred against him'.
Hulyer was a proper fan too and again his heart was in the right place, but way out of his depth.
[cite]Posted By: Stone[/cite]
Ahem...... I had an each way bet for us to go up after seeing the singings of George Shipley, Mark Reid, John Pender, John Pearson and of course a Mr John Humphrey.
How can you forget Steve Thompson and Jimmy Loveridge? (Jimmy who???)
I was there that day - had a season ticket that season. I bet there's not many on here that can say that!
I bought Ricks book last year. Its out of print but if you look hard on the internet you can get it. It's a brilliant read. A must for anyone seriously addickted.
[cite]Off_It wrote:[/cite]I was there that day - had a season ticket that season. I bet there's not many on here that can say that!
I think I did, actually, although I'm not sure whether we got them before or after the move. I'd gone to the occasional game before, but after the bankruptcy thing Dad decided that my sister and I had come too close to losing out on our Addick heritage, and going to football'd be a good thing for us all to do together as a family. Being something of a new fan I didn't really get the strength of feeling against the move at the time, but couldn't understand why they couldn't just stay where they were.
In hindsight, in some respects it was probably the best thing that could have happened at the time, although without Lennie's heroics for those 5 seasons things would have been very different.
[cite]Posted By: InspectorSands[/cite]Isn't Rick re-writing the book? Or am I getting completely confused?
He told me last year he was going to release a updated/rewritten version but not heard anything since. It was at the time that I reviewed a book edited by Dougie Brimsdon which has a chapter on the back to the Valley campaign which had been almostly completely lifted from Rick's book. Kigelia lent me his copy.
Actually haven't read Rick's book (I'm subscriber 84) for years but remember being slightly disappointed that it was wriiten so close to the time and that it lost some perspective and the happy ending. Still an essential read and part of any collection of CHarlton histories. I will have to re-visit it.
It does have a good picture of the naming ceremony for the Jimmy Seed Stand in 1981
I still laugh about who reviewed Rick's book in Voice of the Valley at the time ; - )
On Glicksten I wrote to him in the 90s asking for an interview or for him to come to a Bromley Addicks meeting. He sent me a very polite letter saying he made it a rule not to comment on the club anymore in public but that he still looked out for the results and wished the club well. Talking to some of the older and longer serving directors they have differing views on the various Glickstens but I doubt if anyone would or even could stop them coming to a game if they wanted to.
This is what I don't get (and I was 11 at the time so it wasn't as if knew the full story then...) - if Glikstein loved the club so much, why did he allow the ownership of club and ground to become separate?
He didn't trust Huyler - fair enough - and wouldn't sell to property developers or at least that is one version. What always stuck in my throat was that he sold himself the ground for £400k but wanted £2m for it a few months later.
Would be worth getting richard Collins along to something like City Addicks as he has been on the board for 26 years now and was there throughout all of this. He's also a good talker.
I don't know the in's and outs of Glickstens dealings but maybe the ground was sold to him for a price in lieu of loans which Glickstens company was owed by the football club. When you own both these are not huge issues (although techncally they are different legal entities) but if your main asset against which loans were secured was the ground it's understandable that he may have wished to take the main asset of the club against debts CAFC Ltd owed him prior to selling CAFC Ltd to Hulyer. I think if I had been putting my families money into the club to keep it going for a number of years, I would probably want to ensure that I protected the one tangible asset I had, particularly if I had lent the money to the club by borrowing it secured against the property.
[cite]Posted By: InspectorSands[/cite]This is what I don't get (and I was 11 at the time so it wasn't as if knew the full story then...) - if Glikstein loved the club so much, why did he allow the ownership of club and ground to become separate?
Somebody with a good inside track once told me that Gliksten perceived Hulyer pretty quickly as possibly (probably) a fantasist but certainly an egotist. He therefore allegedly thought he could sell Hulyer the Club straight away and maybe screw more money out of him at a later date for the ground.
The Gliksten version was allegedly that he saw somebody willing to invest money in the Club so sold in the best interests of the Club. However as Hulyer was something of an unknown quantity he decided to protect the Club to some extent by retaining the ground. His alleged version also argues that subsequent events concerning Hulyer proved him right.
Pay your money and take your choice as to the version you believe.
I was also told that Albert Gliksten was the "Fan / football enthusiast" whereas his brother, Stanley, saw Charlton more as another business opportunity. Albert died late forties /early fifties so that assertion may be borne out by the subsequent lack of investment once Stanley took over until his death in 1962.
Michael is Stanley's son I believe so would probably have inherited his fathers business ethos regarding the Club. Certainly the sale of promising young players who could have got us back to the first division like Hinton, Bailey, Bonds and Glover to name just 4 from the 60s would suggest that viewpoint is not unreasonable. The same happened again when success looked possible in the 70s with the sale of Killer and Flash.
All that said though it should be borne in mind that Michael was only 23 when he became Chairman following the death of his father. The rest of the Board at the time were of a similar vintage to his father and may well have had their own axes to grind / investments to enhance / protect. It is therefore hardly surprising that such a young inexperienced chairman presided over what appeared to us fans to be some bizarre decisions.
Comments
But what would they have acheived in getting the game abandoned. A heavy fine for a cash strapped club. Maybe points deducted in a promotion season. Plus the game replayed, not at the Valley but it would have been another evening trip to Sellout. I don't understand how those few who did try to break the goal can be described as heroes.
I'm sure anyone around at that time can remember not only the sadness but also the anger. At the time we were only a few games into the season and no-one really expected us to mount a serious promotion campaign. There wasn't that kind of optimism at Charlton then.
It was too short notice to organise a proper protest, so in doing what they did, they at least they did something. Heroes is probably too strong a word but they certainly weren't vandals.
Ahem...... I had an each way bet for us to go up after seeing the singings of George Shipley, Mark Reid, John Pender, John Pearson and of course a Mr John Humphrey. Hardly ever bet on us before or since apart from the odd £ at the ground when I have a hunch. I remember flashing my betting slip around proudly on the way back from Carlisle :-)
From those going then, does it feel that long ago or has it gone by quickly ?
cos back then i thought we'd never play in the top flight of english football and it happened under sir lennie and the legend curbs.....
'In the days leading up to the game, fans broke into the ground overnight and daubed slogans on the terraces and buildings, attacking both Gliksten and Fryer. But still the plaintive plea "Keep football here" went unheeded.
And so, on Sept 21st, 1985, The Valley's 66-year career as the home of Charlton Athletic came, apparently, to an end. The ground had seen many great occasions, and certainly far better matches, but it had never known a more poisonous atmosphere.
Anger, sadness and above all bewilderment hung obstinately in the air. A pre-match ceremony introducing some of the club's most famous sons coincided with the first of many pitch invasions, this one culminating in the laying of wreaths on the centre circle. The football itself proved so marginal to proceedings that its doubtful many people would have noticed if the teams had stayed in the dressing room.
Later it would be said by some the protests were muted, but it would be more accurate to say that they were not organised. In this respect the supporters club failed its members lamentably, because as a body the fans might quite easily of prevented the match from taking place. They could of watched in stony silence. They could even of sat down in the roads around the ground and refused to enter. However, no one seemed prepared to take the lead, so instead it was only a shambles of discontent.
But protests there were. Before kick-off, a group of a hundred or so fans invaded the East Terrace, and sat down in the middle of it until they were gently but firmly shepherded by police. Throughout the match, a large section of the 8,858 crowd persisted in explaining to Fryer precisely where he could stick his Selhurst Park.
The next pitch invasion came during half-time, delaying the resumption of play by nearly ten minutes. Wave after wave of young men clambered over the low railing in front of the terrace that divided the main stand with the Covered End, appealing by gesture for the fans behind the goal to join them. The sheer weight of their numbers overwhelmed the efforts of the police to restrain them. The more conservative patrons of the seats declined to join them, perhaps because they were prevented from doing so by the formidible fence. Instead they showed their support by applauding, and chanting "We're proud of you, Charlton".
When the pitch had finally been cleared the game resumed, but still the crowd chanted its slogans. "We hate Palace" echoed around the old ground, a reminder that the directors had further compounded the folly of leaving by choosing the wrong alternative venue.
When the final whistle went, the players and officials fled as if for their lives, and now the fans, young and old, poured onto the pitch and the protest began in earnest. But it was much, much too late. The directors had left their places and the chants of the angry crowd were directed only at empty seats.
My mind, like the crowd, was a confusion of emotions. Most of all, however, i was simply frustrated that the directors could not, or would not, see what was blatently obvious to everyone else. Namely that what they were proposing to do simply could not work. It would not fail just because of the chaotic South London traffic system, it would fail because Charlton Athletic and The Valley were one and the same thing. It was playing in Floyd Road, SE7, that gave the club its identity and the team its legitimacy in the eyes of the supporters.
Take that away and eventually you would have nothing but a gang of mercenaries in red shirts'
I remember him coming home with turf and various parts of the ground later that night.
Doing a paper round the next day , on the back pages of the mirror is a picture of my Dad on the pitch giving the directors some stick
His name was Phil Martin.
Did n't he get cheered all the way to the top , only to then have a piss !?
Having inherited the club in the early/mid 60's from his father and uncle, Gliksten was still quite younga t the time. He gradually became a figure of contempt as the 70's progressed - mainly due to lack of investment in the club and a perceived lack of interest on his part. And believe me, the decay was becoming evident - occasionally being relieved with patching the crumbling concrete of the huge East Terrace and a splash of red paint on the rusting corrugated iron fabric of the grandstand and the covered end.
About 1979 though, Gliksten did seem to make one last effort. The traditional 1920's style character roof of the stand was replaced with a utilitarian design and the Jimmy Seed stand was built behind the then uncovered end.
The team promptly got relegated to Division 3.
Mike Bailey got the team promoted back to Division 2 at the first attempt and Gliksten hung on for a season or so before selling the club to Mark Hulyer - but keeping ownership of the ground.
And that's when a whole new series of problems arose culminating in the winding up order of 1984, the subsequent last minute reprieve and new ownership by Sunleys - and of course, the abandonment of the Valley.
Sunleys were not going to put any investment into the ground if they couldn't own it.
And at that time, Gliksten still owned The Valley and was considered very much one of the villains of the piece.
I wonder if he would still be welcome?
"who?"
if he turned up.
The game was irrelevent, and the atmosphere being described as poisonous and a shambles of discontent are what my memories are. I was on the pitch after the game and too took home some turf and planted it in my Mum's garden. It died not long after and I took this as a bad sign, glad I was wrong.
As for Gliksten, I grew up hating the bloke, probably influenced by my Dad. His father was probably the real villian though, it only needed the slightest investment in the 50's to push us into the title challenging team but it never came and the role of Fryer in our history is always a good one to debate.
The idiots comment did him no favours though, and there is an argument that both Hulyer and Gliksten were bigger fans of the club.
Hulyer was a proper fan too and again his heart was in the right place, but way out of his depth.
How can you forget Steve Thompson and Jimmy Loveridge? (Jimmy who???)
I was there that day - had a season ticket that season. I bet there's not many on here that can say that!
I would be great if he was as there is alot to add.
In hindsight, in some respects it was probably the best thing that could have happened at the time, although without Lennie's heroics for those 5 seasons things would have been very different.
He told me last year he was going to release a updated/rewritten version but not heard anything since. It was at the time that I reviewed a book edited by Dougie Brimsdon which has a chapter on the back to the Valley campaign which had been almostly completely lifted from Rick's book. Kigelia lent me his copy.
Actually haven't read Rick's book (I'm subscriber 84) for years but remember being slightly disappointed that it was wriiten so close to the time and that it lost some perspective and the happy ending. Still an essential read and part of any collection of CHarlton histories. I will have to re-visit it.
It does have a good picture of the naming ceremony for the Jimmy Seed Stand in 1981
I still laugh about who reviewed Rick's book in Voice of the Valley at the time ; - )
On Glicksten I wrote to him in the 90s asking for an interview or for him to come to a Bromley Addicks meeting. He sent me a very polite letter saying he made it a rule not to comment on the club anymore in public but that he still looked out for the results and wished the club well. Talking to some of the older and longer serving directors they have differing views on the various Glickstens but I doubt if anyone would or even could stop them coming to a game if they wanted to.
Would be worth getting richard Collins along to something like City Addicks as he has been on the board for 26 years now and was there throughout all of this. He's also a good talker.
Somebody with a good inside track once told me that Gliksten perceived Hulyer pretty quickly as possibly (probably) a fantasist but certainly an egotist. He therefore allegedly thought he could sell Hulyer the Club straight away and maybe screw more money out of him at a later date for the ground.
The Gliksten version was allegedly that he saw somebody willing to invest money in the Club so sold in the best interests of the Club. However as Hulyer was something of an unknown quantity he decided to protect the Club to some extent by retaining the ground. His alleged version also argues that subsequent events concerning Hulyer proved him right.
Pay your money and take your choice as to the version you believe.
I was also told that Albert Gliksten was the "Fan / football enthusiast" whereas his brother, Stanley, saw Charlton more as another business opportunity. Albert died late forties /early fifties so that assertion may be borne out by the subsequent lack of investment once Stanley took over until his death in 1962.
Michael is Stanley's son I believe so would probably have inherited his fathers business ethos regarding the Club. Certainly the sale of promising young players who could have got us back to the first division like Hinton, Bailey, Bonds and Glover to name just 4 from the 60s would suggest that viewpoint is not unreasonable. The same happened again when success looked possible in the 70s with the sale of Killer and Flash.
All that said though it should be borne in mind that Michael was only 23 when he became Chairman following the death of his father. The rest of the Board at the time were of a similar vintage to his father and may well have had their own axes to grind / investments to enhance / protect. It is therefore hardly surprising that such a young inexperienced chairman presided over what appeared to us fans to be some bizarre decisions.