Once again, I am talking for myself here, so feel free to take me to task on my own opinions.
Implicit in your remarks here today and others I have seen you make in the past is that the attitude of fans is in some way to blame for the current state of Charlton Athletic Football Club.
Then was not the implication I was ever trying to make. The fans are not to blame for the current state of the club and I don't believe I have ever said it was.
The vitriol which has appeared in recent months from SOME fans however is something which dismays me. That is not blaming them for the current state of the club.
[cite]Posted By: PragueAddick[/cite] My main concern about (Waggott) remains that Richard Murray was excluded from the latter part of the selection process when he was appointed. This has been put directly to David Sumners on the mailing list and David has chosen not to deny or correct this.
So you have no proof of this. Only that it has not been denied or accepted on . I don't know the details of Waggott's appointment but I do know that Richard was involved at some level. I don't know to what level but he was involved. I do know that CEOs from other CCC clubs applied and were interviewed but SW was seen to be the best candidate. I was told this by Richard Murray at the Bloggers night some months ago. He was full of praise for Steve and listed the qualities and experience that he brought to the job. At no time did he suggest that he was not involved in the decision or that he was in anyway unhappy with it.
In any case, IF it is true - which I don't know - that the final decision was made by Chappell two things. One. CHappell is the CEO's line manager so it would seem normal for him to have the final call. Perhaps it is the same with the Football Manager and the FC Chair (ie Richard) appointing Parkinson. Niether of us know.
Two. So what. Is Waggott doing a good job? Do you have any examples of errors, mistakes, failings, that he has made. You have not given me any so I am assuming not but please list his faults. My impression is that Steve and Richard have been working very hard together on transfers this month.
[quote][cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]Prague what are your views on steve waggot or are you just not happy in the way he got the job?[/quote]
Yes, mainly that. Secondly that his career/cv does not look to me like that of a potential a CEO of a football club - a business. I have nothing against him as a person,I have never met him and he may well have qualities which will be positive for the role but I am deeply worried about the implication that the Board does not currently make united, coherent, sensible decisions.
[cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]Prague what are your views on steve waggot or are you just not happy in the way he got the job?
Yes, mainly that. Secondly that his career/cv does not look to me like that of a potential a CEO of a football club - a business. I have nothing against him as a person,I have never met him and he may well have qualities which will be positive for the role but I am deeply worried about the implication that the Board does not currently make united, coherent, sensible decisions.
if I may say so, that's more like it. I take your remarks from Richard Murray seriously. Two points though. My understanding is that Chappell and Bob Whitehand were involved. I am afraid that through personal experience I would have misgivings about Bob Whitehand's choice in such a matter. Second I believe that suitable external candidates were NOT interviewed, even though their cvs were available. Again from personal experience, this time my own professional activity, if that was the case it is a clear indication that all is not well inside the company.
I do not wish to criticise Waggott himself, see my comments above. The issue is what is happening in the Boardroom, and why.
What you may wish to consider is that this kind of information does not come into the public domain through the actions of third parties. It can only be put there by people who have it in the first place - i.e. members of the board - as is the case here to my certain knowledge.
Briefly, as I have a meeting now.This is my understanding
1, A mixed career, not a mainstream business one. At one time a journalist on the Sunday Sport. CEOs usually show steady career progression. 2. Never run a 'proper' business, or been a number 2 or 3 in that business.
Finally in management selection, you do not just focus on the one person. You also ask, is there anyone out there who is better? Thats the key question of the person/team doing the selecting.
[cite]Posted By: PragueAddick[/cite]o what is his CV like? What are the gaps?
Briefly, as I have a meeting now.This is my understanding
1, A mixed career, not a mainstream business one. At one time a journalist on the Sunday Sport. CEOs usually show steady career progression.
2. Never run a 'proper' business, or been a number 2 or 3 in that business.
Finally in management selection, you do not just focus on the one person. You also ask, is there anyone out there who is better? Thats the key question of the person/team doing the selecting.[/quote]
Similar to Peter Varney's background in a Charity then as SW ran the very successful Trust at Charlton.
Maybe he should be judged on what he does regardless of how we was or wasn't appointed.
I see valid points on both sides of this, and through that i don't think you're going to reach an agreement because you both already set in your stance.
But whether we currently have a good chief executive or not is heresay at the moment, as the two main areas of imbalance appear to me in the layer above that, and on the football side.
In my mind it is not the chief executive who makes the managerial decisions to hire or fire, the caretaker decisions, the decisions on what players to bring in, the inability to keep a clean sheet, the inability to play a settled side, the inability to play a system that looks like we are going to score goals.
Those are chairman and manager decisions, and they are where the main mistakes have been made IMO, or am i reading that wrong ?
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]I see valid points on both sides of this, and through that i don't think you're going to reach an agreement because you both already set in your stance.
But whether we currently have a good chief executive or not is heresay at the moment, as the two main areas of imbalance appear to me in the layer above that, and on the football side.
In my mind it is not the chief executive who makes the managerial decisions to hire or fire, the caretaker decisions, the decisions on what players to bring in, the inability to keep a clean sheet, the inability to play a settled side, the inability to play a system that looks like we are going to score goals.
Those are chairman and manager decisions, and they are where the main mistakes have been made IMO, or am i reading that wrong ?
No, I think you are right which is why I find the focus on the CEO so strange but as you say we're not going to agree so let's leave it there and worry about the real business of today.
Getting into the Liberal Club without my CIU card which my brother has. : -)
[cite]Posted By: PragueAddick[/cite]o what is his CV like? What are the gaps?
Similar to Peter Varney's background in a Charity then as SW ran the very successful Trust at Charlton.
Maybe he should be judged on what he does regardless of how we was or wasn't appointed.
And presumably on his achievements, rather than just on any mistakes?
The problem for Steve W is that even if he starts from the same point as Peter Varney, as you suggest, he comes in without that 11 years of experience running a football club acquired by Peter. He is at best the equivalent of Varney in 1997. And given that we are in a crisis, the club needs all the management experience it can get. That's not Steve's fault, but it is his predicament.
I think it would be a bit harsh on Jason Morgan and Matt Parish to argue that the trust's success was down to Steve W - from recollection he was only there three years and the community scheme on which it is based was built up over 17 - and I doubt if Steve W would make that claim himself, which isn't to say that he wasn't successful at what he did in that time frame.
if I may say so, that's more like it. I take your remarks from Richard Murray seriously. Two points though. My understanding is that Chappell and Bob Whitehand were involved. I am afraid that through personal experience I would have misgivings about Bob Whitehand's choice in such a matter. Second I believe that suitable external candidates were NOT interviewed, even though their cvs were available. Again from personal experience, this time my own professional activity, if that was the case it is a clear indication that all is not well inside the company.
There is no doubt in my mind that Parkinsons full time appointment was dictated by the current financial situation, nothing else, I stand to be corrected. I dont blame Parky for that, how can you?
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]I see valid points on both sides of this, and through that i don't think you're going to reach an agreement because you both already set in your stance.
But whether we currently have a good chief executive or not is heresay at the moment, as the two main areas of imbalance appear to me in the layer above that, and on the football side.
In my mind it is not the chief executive who makes the managerial decisions to hire or fire, the caretaker decisions, the decisions on what players to bring in, the inability to keep a clean sheet, the inability to play a settled side, the inability to play a system that looks like we are going to score goals.
Those are chairman and manager decisions, and they are where the main mistakes have been made IMO, or am i reading that wrong ?
No, I think you are right which is why I find the focus on the CEO so strange but as you say we're not going to agree so let's leave it there and worry about the real business of today.
Getting into the Liberal Club without my CIU card which my brother has. : -)
Hear hear Bart......he is after all only an employee...albeit at the top of the ladder...important yes but NOT the most important person at the end of the day as he is responible to his bosses.
You certainly did ask questions of Derek at the Bromley meeting but you did not, to my memory, ask anything about his "low profile" or relationship with Richard Murray.
There was a questions asked about finance which Derek answered at length and explained the matrix system, the veto he believed directors should have and the reasons for and the nature of the bond scheme.
But yes, other than that he didn't tell us anything ; - (
He turned up, which you were sure he wouldn't - if fact you said that he would hide behind Steve Waggott. He answered the questions yet you still say he keeps a low profile. At how many other clubs does a PLC Chair turn up and answer unscripted questions. Richard always has and now Derek does. I think Richard does it better than Derek but that's maybe cos he's had more practice or is just a different person.
I also notice that Steve Waggott, previously a target of yours AA - described as "Chappell's man" is now off the agenda. I wonder why
I asked what I thought were appropriate questions to ask in that particular forum. The matrix (and how it related to Richard Murray, which was pretty clear without his name being mentioned) and Parky's chances of a permanent job based on "results" were both interesting and revealing.
I haven't seen evidence to change my mind about some of the things that have gone wrong, and could be improved. Particularly with regards to the club/board speaking clearly in one voice on crucial matters, and general methods of open communication.
It will be interesting to see how the board reacts to the statement and questions from the Fans' Forum group.
And since there has never been an agenda, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. Unless you have an agenda, by insisting that others that may disagree with you must have one.
Ben Hayes was a director of the club until relatively recently and he will have a greater understanding of the boardroom politics than anyone else on this message board. It seems to me he is defensive of Steve Waggott because he puts the blame for the current financial mess at the club down to Peter Varney who as Ben rightly says was the CEO until last June.I have a friend who knows someone who is in the boardroom at every home match and he tells me that Varney has not been in the boardroom since he left and I am not sure if he is a regular at matches. Also when Varney left there was no drinks in the boardroom or anything like that so that would suggest to me there is some bad feeling around at director level about how the club was being run and that it is probably better run now despite our obvious problems on the pitch.
No, I'm not putting it down to Peter. Peter was part of the board but was the CEO, the most senior employee. He did a great job and I greatly admire him as an CEO and a person.
I was only pointing out the obvious flaw in AA arguments about whatever happens on a "watch" being the fault of the current incumbent. If it applies to Waggott then it has to apply to Varney. If it applies to Chappell then is has to apply to Murray.
As I said before in the real world things are not that simplistic which is why it is annoying to read intelligent men such as AA make it seem as if it is.
Peter still goes to all the games and when I speak to him still cares just as much, which is a lot, as he ever did.
What on earth you on about Addick1905? Varney had a very big leaving do in a bar in Blackheath that all were invited to and a number of directors went to. tho i cant say actually how many went but i know a few did.
Richard Murray couldnt speak highly enough of Varney at City Addicks and i believe Varney still attends home games but prefers to sit in his regular seat in the west stand - As he ALWAYS did when he was employed at the club.
[cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]What on earth you on about Addick1905? Varney had a very big leaving do in a bar in Blackheath that all were invited to and a number of directors went to. tho i cant say actually how many went but i know a few did.
Richard Murray couldnt speak highly enough of Varney at City Addicks and i believe Varney still attends home games but prefers to sit in his regular seat in the west stand - As he ALWAYS did when he was employed at the club.
Quite so. Very big turn out for PVs leaving do including directors, ex-players and ex and current staff.
He NEVER did go into the directors lounge or even sit in the directors box come to that.
I am given to understand he 'always' sat in the West Lower with the rest of his family.
Comments
Then was not the implication I was ever trying to make. The fans are not to blame for the current state of the club and I don't believe I have ever said it was.
The vitriol which has appeared in recent months from SOME fans however is something which dismays me. That is not blaming them for the current state of the club.
So you have no proof of this. Only that it has not been denied or accepted on . I don't know the details of Waggott's appointment but I do know that Richard was involved at some level. I don't know to what level but he was involved. I do know that CEOs from other CCC clubs applied and were interviewed but SW was seen to be the best candidate. I was told this by Richard Murray at the Bloggers night some months ago. He was full of praise for Steve and listed the qualities and experience that he brought to the job. At no time did he suggest that he was not involved in the decision or that he was in anyway unhappy with it.
In any case, IF it is true - which I don't know - that the final decision was made by Chappell two things. One. CHappell is the CEO's line manager so it would seem normal for him to have the final call. Perhaps it is the same with the Football Manager and the FC Chair (ie Richard) appointing Parkinson. Niether of us know.
Two. So what. Is Waggott doing a good job? Do you have any examples of errors, mistakes, failings, that he has made. You have not given me any so I am assuming not but please list his faults. My impression is that Steve and Richard have been working very hard together on transfers this month.
Yes, mainly that. Secondly that his career/cv does not look to me like that of a potential a CEO of a football club - a business. I have nothing against him as a person,I have never met him and he may well have qualities which will be positive for the role but I am deeply worried about the implication that the Board does not currently make united, coherent, sensible decisions.
So what is his CV like? What are the gaps?
if I may say so, that's more like it. I take your remarks from Richard Murray seriously. Two points though. My understanding is that Chappell and Bob Whitehand were involved. I am afraid that through personal experience I would have misgivings about Bob Whitehand's choice in such a matter. Second I believe that suitable external candidates were NOT interviewed, even though their cvs were available. Again from personal experience, this time my own professional activity, if that was the case it is a clear indication that all is not well inside the company.
I do not wish to criticise Waggott himself, see my comments above. The issue is what is happening in the Boardroom, and why.
Briefly, as I have a meeting now.This is my understanding
1, A mixed career, not a mainstream business one. At one time a journalist on the Sunday Sport. CEOs usually show steady career progression.
2. Never run a 'proper' business, or been a number 2 or 3 in that business.
Finally in management selection, you do not just focus on the one person. You also ask, is there anyone out there who is better? Thats the key question of the person/team doing the selecting.
Briefly, as I have a meeting now.This is my understanding
1, A mixed career, not a mainstream business one. At one time a journalist on the Sunday Sport. CEOs usually show steady career progression.
2. Never run a 'proper' business, or been a number 2 or 3 in that business.
Finally in management selection, you do not just focus on the one person. You also ask, is there anyone out there who is better? Thats the key question of the person/team doing the selecting.[/quote]
Similar to Peter Varney's background in a Charity then as SW ran the very successful Trust at Charlton.
Maybe he should be judged on what he does regardless of how we was or wasn't appointed.
But whether we currently have a good chief executive or not is heresay at the moment, as the two main areas of imbalance appear to me in the layer above that, and on the football side.
In my mind it is not the chief executive who makes the managerial decisions to hire or fire, the caretaker decisions, the decisions on what players to bring in, the inability to keep a clean sheet, the inability to play a settled side, the inability to play a system that looks like we are going to score goals.
Those are chairman and manager decisions, and they are where the main mistakes have been made IMO, or am i reading that wrong ?
No, I think you are right which is why I find the focus on the CEO so strange but as you say we're not going to agree so let's leave it there and worry about the real business of today.
Getting into the Liberal Club without my CIU card which my brother has. : -)
And presumably on his achievements, rather than just on any mistakes?
The problem for Steve W is that even if he starts from the same point as Peter Varney, as you suggest, he comes in without that 11 years of experience running a football club acquired by Peter. He is at best the equivalent of Varney in 1997. And given that we are in a crisis, the club needs all the management experience it can get. That's not Steve's fault, but it is his predicament.
I think it would be a bit harsh on Jason Morgan and Matt Parish to argue that the trust's success was down to Steve W - from recollection he was only there three years and the community scheme on which it is based was built up over 17 - and I doubt if Steve W would make that claim himself, which isn't to say that he wasn't successful at what he did in that time frame.
There is no doubt in my mind that Parkinsons full time appointment was dictated by the current financial situation, nothing else, I stand to be corrected. I dont blame Parky for that, how can you?
ooh, its gonna cost ya lol
I asked what I thought were appropriate questions to ask in that particular forum. The matrix (and how it related to Richard Murray, which was pretty clear without his name being mentioned) and Parky's chances of a permanent job based on "results" were both interesting and revealing.
I haven't seen evidence to change my mind about some of the things that have gone wrong, and could be improved. Particularly with regards to the club/board speaking clearly in one voice on crucial matters, and general methods of open communication.
It will be interesting to see how the board reacts to the statement and questions from the Fans' Forum group.
And since there has never been an agenda, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. Unless you have an agenda, by insisting that others that may disagree with you must have one.
Also when Varney left there was no drinks in the boardroom or anything like that so that would suggest to me there is some bad feeling around at director level about how the club was being run and that it is probably better run now despite our obvious problems on the pitch.
I was only pointing out the obvious flaw in AA arguments about whatever happens on a "watch" being the fault of the current incumbent. If it applies to Waggott then it has to apply to Varney. If it applies to Chappell then is has to apply to Murray.
As I said before in the real world things are not that simplistic which is why it is annoying to read intelligent men such as AA make it seem as if it is.
Peter still goes to all the games and when I speak to him still cares just as much, which is a lot, as he ever did.
Richard Murray couldnt speak highly enough of Varney at City Addicks and i believe Varney still attends home games but prefers to sit in his regular seat in the west stand - As he ALWAYS did when he was employed at the club.
Quite so. Very big turn out for PVs leaving do including directors, ex-players and ex and current staff.
I am given to understand he 'always' sat in the West Lower with the rest of his family.