Why bring me into it fer gawdssakes? My criticism of SW was his gigantic wage hoovering up loads of season ticket money for seemingly no work. I wrote to SW directly at the time to try to discover if he did any work for his very very substantial wage. That was always my agenda and it was years ago, so enjoyable as the discussion is on here, I have not initiated any of it, and ought not to be invoked as part of it.
But you were the one who started the whole Geordie Smiler thing with your remark about his always smiling and somehow not being suitable as he written about Millwall. If you'd just stuck to what he did or didn't do fair enough but you didn't.
You have it wrong. What exactly was the 'whole Geordie Smiler' thing? My memory was it was a nickname attributed by others. I also would not have said he was unsuitable because he had written about Millwall, that is a misrepresentation, but if you would like to show me chapter and verse I will admit it if it happened. I repeat I wrote to SW (twice), and did not get any response at all, and you may also remember I wrote to him at your behest because you felt he ought not to be criticised on a message board, but to take it up directly, which as I say I did. My issue with him at the time (and the numbers are a bit hazy) was that it would take about 3000 season ticket holders to fund his wage, and what work was he doing for all that money. Interesting that you have an internal code as to what is 'fair enough', the problem with that is you risk thinking that only your approach is the 'fair enough' one, and if others don't share that approach they are unfair, enough?
You are fond of telling others to move on, yet you rehash all this stuff.
Leave it out Seth, incredible rewriting of history there.
No idea what you mean by "internal code"
Not a rewriting of history, simply a rebuttal of what you have attributed to me.
'Internal code', which is something most of us have, and I mentioned it in response to you saying 'fair enough'. Most of us have an internal code as to what is 'fair' but it isn't the same for everybody, and you needn't take the trouble to tell me what aspects of what I have written is 'fair' as you measure fairness against your perspective, not mine.
No, still no idea what relevance this has to what you said about Waggot.
Why bring me into it fer gawdssakes? My criticism of SW was his gigantic wage hoovering up loads of season ticket money for seemingly no work. I wrote to SW directly at the time to try to discover if he did any work for his very very substantial wage. That was always my agenda and it was years ago, so enjoyable as the discussion is on here, I have not initiated any of it, and ought not to be invoked as part of it.
But you were the one who started the whole Geordie Smiler thing with your remark about his always smiling and somehow not being suitable as he written about Millwall. If you'd just stuck to what he did or didn't do fair enough but you didn't.
You have it wrong. What exactly was the 'whole Geordie Smiler' thing? My memory was it was a nickname attributed by others. I also would not have said he was unsuitable because he had written about Millwall, that is a misrepresentation, but if you would like to show me chapter and verse I will admit it if it happened. I repeat I wrote to SW (twice), and did not get any response at all, and you may also remember I wrote to him at your behest because you felt he ought not to be criticised on a message board, but to take it up directly, which as I say I did. My issue with him at the time (and the numbers are a bit hazy) was that it would take about 3000 season ticket holders to fund his wage, and what work was he doing for all that money. Interesting that you have an internal code as to what is 'fair enough', the problem with that is you risk thinking that only your approach is the 'fair enough' one, and if others don't share that approach they are unfair, enough?
You are fond of telling others to move on, yet you rehash all this stuff.
Leave it out Seth, incredible rewriting of history there.
No idea what you mean by "internal code"
Not a rewriting of history, simply a rebuttal of what you have attributed to me.
'Internal code', which is something most of us have, and I mentioned it in response to you saying 'fair enough'. Most of us have an internal code as to what is 'fair' but it isn't the same for everybody, and you needn't take the trouble to tell me what aspects of what I have written is 'fair' as you measure fairness against your perspective, not mine.
No, still no idea what relevance this has to what you said about Waggot.
Sheesh, it is about what you said I said, and you have misrepresented me.
My impression is their business plan is based on player development/sales, rather than filling the stadium, and that development and retention of support is a long way down their list or priorities, also suggesting a relatively short term view. One might even suggest the personnel and management structure is lean and targeted largely at the former.
Additionally their experience at Liege of supporters has been that the more active simply represent a problem, particularly when more controversial activities around their business plan emerge, hence they are very wary of giving any gravity to any that may publicly disagree with them. Indeed they might actually welcome the departure of a thousand or maybe less season ticket holders.
Why bring me into it fer gawdssakes? My criticism of SW was his gigantic wage hoovering up loads of season ticket money for seemingly no work. I wrote to SW directly at the time to try to discover if he did any work for his very very substantial wage. That was always my agenda and it was years ago, so enjoyable as the discussion is on here, I have not initiated any of it, and ought not to be invoked as part of it.
But you were the one who started the whole Geordie Smiler thing with your remark about his always smiling and somehow not being suitable as he written about Millwall. If you'd just stuck to what he did or didn't do fair enough but you didn't.
You have it wrong. What exactly was the 'whole Geordie Smiler' thing? My memory was it was a nickname attributed by others. I also would not have said he was unsuitable because he had written about Millwall, that is a misrepresentation, but if you would like to show me chapter and verse I will admit it if it happened. I repeat I wrote to SW (twice), and did not get any response at all, and you may also remember I wrote to him at your behest because you felt he ought not to be criticised on a message board, but to take it up directly, which as I say I did. My issue with him at the time (and the numbers are a bit hazy) was that it would take about 3000 season ticket holders to fund his wage, and what work was he doing for all that money. Interesting that you have an internal code as to what is 'fair enough', the problem with that is you risk thinking that only your approach is the 'fair enough' one, and if others don't share that approach they are unfair, enough?
You are fond of telling others to move on, yet you rehash all this stuff.
Leave it out Seth, incredible rewriting of history there.
No idea what you mean by "internal code"
Not a rewriting of history, simply a rebuttal of what you have attributed to me.
'Internal code', which is something most of us have, and I mentioned it in response to you saying 'fair enough'. Most of us have an internal code as to what is 'fair' but it isn't the same for everybody, and you needn't take the trouble to tell me what aspects of what I have written is 'fair' as you measure fairness against your perspective, not mine.
No, still no idea what relevance this has to what you said about Waggot.
Sheesh, it is about what you said I said, and you have misrepresented me.
Apologies, I though you knew Seth Plum as he sells VOTV.
I didn't use the word "intimidated", you did. I stand by what I said that some of the advice has been offered in an aggressive manner although I still think she is missing a trick by not speaking with people. She might learn something and it would deflect the criticism that she won't listen.
But I repeat that I feel that she is a new manager and like a lot of new managers is likely to feel less that totally confident in that role. I'd offer some 1-2-1 business coaching but I don't think they CAFC can afford me.
I stand by all my criticism of Ben Kensell's actions and was delighted to see him leave.
And that makes me responsible for his input to Charlton Life?!
I don't accept your word "aggressive" but perception is all. Do you really think then that Sue, for example, is "aggressive"? Most approaches made to KM over 18 months have been private and they are numerous and diverse. To my knowledge they have been friendly and constructive - I doubt if any have been "aggressive".
The RD regime did itself a lot of damage in the first few months, which as far as I can see wasn't KM's fault, but I think her subsequent determination to keep a significant number of experienced people at arm's length makes no business sense, whether or not it's the product of insecurity.
At this stage I don't think there is much point in expecting a change of attitude, but equally you can't blame the various people who have been trying.
I think emails demanding a response by the end of the working day are aggressive and self -defeating but that was nothing to do with or connected with you. I think public questions at the VIP meeting demanding a meeting with Roland over her head were aggressive and her reaction was as you would expect. Again nothing to do with you.
But neither do I think "you're incompetent but I think you should speak to me and others" is a very subtle approach either. I agree totally that excluding experienced people makes no business sense and have said the same to KM at Bromley Addicks. However, if, as I suspect, there is an element of imposter syndrome then that should be taken into account. In doing so you and others might find a way to engage with her.
I also think she has to listen to RD and collaborative working does not appear to be the management style he role models for her (sorry for slipping into management jargon again).
That is a real shame. Most businesses would kill for the amount of customer interest and free advice and effort offered by fans to CAFC and KM and RD are missing a huge trick in not taking up at least some of those offers. But I can see SOME of the reasons why that is and why SOME people and groups aren't seen in a positive light due to their own actions and words.
This is a misrepresentation of the sequence of events though. I only came to this conclusion following her persistent refusal to engage, when approached privately, politely and constructively, as she knows. I'm not particularly surprised if she is wary of a critical fanzine editor or bothered about it. However, the issue is much wider than me. There are plenty of people she could have got on side who would have helped build trust and confidence. Excluding them has had the opposite effect.
Is there really a debate happening about whether someone did or didn't say something in 2009. How do you even remember? I can't remember what happened yesterday let alone 6 years ago
I loaned you £50, to which you agreed to pay me back double today.
Is there really a debate happening about whether someone did or didn't say something in 2009. How do you even remember? I can't remember what happened yesterday let alone 6 years ago
I loaned you £50, to which you agreed to pay me back double today.
It's true as I remember you borrowed £100 off me the same day.
Apologies, I though you knew Seth Plum as he sells VOTV.
I didn't use the word "intimidated", you did. I stand by what I said that some of the advice has been offered in an aggressive manner although I still think she is missing a trick by not speaking with people. She might learn something and it would deflect the criticism that she won't listen.
But I repeat that I feel that she is a new manager and like a lot of new managers is likely to feel less that totally confident in that role. I'd offer some 1-2-1 business coaching but I don't think they CAFC can afford me.
I stand by all my criticism of Ben Kensell's actions and was delighted to see him leave.
And that makes me responsible for his input to Charlton Life?!
I don't accept your word "aggressive" but perception is all. Do you really think then that Sue, for example, is "aggressive"? Most approaches made to KM over 18 months have been private and they are numerous and diverse. To my knowledge they have been friendly and constructive - I doubt if any have been "aggressive".
The RD regime did itself a lot of damage in the first few months, which as far as I can see wasn't KM's fault, but I think her subsequent determination to keep a significant number of experienced people at arm's length makes no business sense, whether or not it's the product of insecurity.
At this stage I don't think there is much point in expecting a change of attitude, but equally you can't blame the various people who have been trying.
I think emails demanding a response by the end of the working day are aggressive and self -defeating but that was nothing to do with or connected with you. I think public questions at the VIP meeting demanding a meeting with Roland over her head were aggressive and her reaction was as you would expect. Again nothing to do with you.
But neither do I think "you're incompetent but I think you should speak to me and others" is a very subtle approach either. I agree totally that excluding experienced people makes no business sense and have said the same to KM at Bromley Addicks. However, if, as I suspect, there is an element of imposter syndrome then that should be taken into account. In doing so you and others might find a way to engage with her.
I also think she has to listen to RD and collaborative working does not appear to be the management style he role models for her (sorry for slipping into management jargon again).
That is a real shame. Most businesses would kill for the amount of customer interest and free advice and effort offered by fans to CAFC and KM and RD are missing a huge trick in not taking up at least some of those offers. But I can see SOME of the reasons why that is and why SOME people and groups aren't seen in a positive light due to their own actions and words.
This is a misrepresentation of the sequence of events though. I only came to this conclusion following her persistent refusal to engage, when approached privately, politely and constructively, as she knows. I'm not particularly surprised if she is wary of a critical fanzine editor or bothered about it. However, the issue is much wider than me. There are plenty of people she could have got on side who would have helped build trust and confidence. Excluding them has had the opposite effect.
I agree RD is a big factor.
RD is a huge factor. He has, IMHO given the role to an inexperienced manager yet not given her the resources she needs to be a success ie an experienced middle management team but it appears has also discouraged her from using other resources such as previous staff and directors. Or it could be all her decision.
He also imposes appointments of players and managers (the Luzon appointment being the obvious) without, IMHO, proper consultation or involvement of the CEO but I doubt that was the first time that has happened at Charlton.
I know you tried to engage and KM said no and you rightly said that you felt that was a mistake. I agree. It's the step from that to her being incompetent that I disagree with for the reasons I gave before.
This seems a good way to end it. It is perfectly reasonable that people can hold different views on whether she is competent or just a bit naive. I'm reserving judgement until next season.
Apologies, I though you knew Seth Plum as he sells VOTV.
I didn't use the word "intimidated", you did. I stand by what I said that some of the advice has been offered in an aggressive manner although I still think she is missing a trick by not speaking with people. She might learn something and it would deflect the criticism that she won't listen.
But I repeat that I feel that she is a new manager and like a lot of new managers is likely to feel less that totally confident in that role. I'd offer some 1-2-1 business coaching but I don't think they CAFC can afford me.
I stand by all my criticism of Ben Kensell's actions and was delighted to see him leave.
And that makes me responsible for his input to Charlton Life?!
I don't accept your word "aggressive" but perception is all. Do you really think then that Sue, for example, is "aggressive"? Most approaches made to KM over 18 months have been private and they are numerous and diverse. To my knowledge they have been friendly and constructive - I doubt if any have been "aggressive".
The RD regime did itself a lot of damage in the first few months, which as far as I can see wasn't KM's fault, but I think her subsequent determination to keep a significant number of experienced people at arm's length makes no business sense, whether or not it's the product of insecurity.
At this stage I don't think there is much point in expecting a change of attitude, but equally you can't blame the various people who have been trying.
I think emails demanding a response by the end of the working day are aggressive and self -defeating but that was nothing to do with or connected with you. I think public questions at the VIP meeting demanding a meeting with Roland over her head were aggressive and her reaction was as you would expect. Again nothing to do with you.
But neither do I think "you're incompetent but I think you should speak to me and others" is a very subtle approach either. I agree totally that excluding experienced people makes no business sense and have said the same to KM at Bromley Addicks. However, if, as I suspect, there is an element of imposter syndrome then that should be taken into account. In doing so you and others might find a way to engage with her.
I also think she has to listen to RD and collaborative working does not appear to be the management style he role models for her (sorry for slipping into management jargon again).
That is a real shame. Most businesses would kill for the amount of customer interest and free advice and effort offered by fans to CAFC and KM and RD are missing a huge trick in not taking up at least some of those offers. But I can see SOME of the reasons why that is and why SOME people and groups aren't seen in a positive light due to their own actions and words.
This is a misrepresentation of the sequence of events though. I only came to this conclusion following her persistent refusal to engage, when approached privately, politely and constructively, as she knows. I'm not particularly surprised if she is wary of a critical fanzine editor or bothered about it. However, the issue is much wider than me. There are plenty of people she could have got on side who would have helped build trust and confidence. Excluding them has had the opposite effect.
I agree RD is a big factor.
RD is a huge factor. He has, IMHO given the role to an inexperienced manager yet not given her the resources she needs to be a success ie an experienced middle management team but it appears has also discouraged her from using other resources such as previous staff and directors. Or it could be all her decision.
He also imposes appointments of players and managers (the Luzon appointment being the obvious) without, IMHO, proper consultation or involvement of the CEO but I doubt that was the first time that has happened at Charlton.
I know you tried to engage and KM said no and you rightly said that you felt that was a mistake. I agree. It's the step from that to her being incompetent that I disagree with for the reasons I gave before.
That's not quite accurate, but in any case you asserted me calling her incompetent would have been a factor, when that would have been about a year later and by no means entirely based on my limited personal interaction with her, which is not that important anyway.
I think we agree that it would be more sensible if the club used all its resources, which is how I see the bank of experience now largely located outside the organisation. But if it won't then so be it. Ultimately, people get judged on outcomes.
I'm just not sure there is a full enough appreciation of how the club was rebuilt on the back of fan participation, perhaps even becoming the culture of the club, what impact its removal or denial has one can only speculate on, but it doesn't look great.
I hope they come around and that it is more central part the businesss plan to improve long term attendances. Perhaps this summer km will look again at engagement as she said in the spring, and perhaps there has been some miscommunication or misunderstanding that can be overcome.
I also dont doubt SB was in some way trying to undermine the integrity of the Trust (i don't know about other groups/people) in the eyes of the new ownership, indeed he did so in one of our early meetings, totally without justification of course. I guess his neck was on the line at the time.
If the old ways had started to go wrong however far back you want to go surely a new approach is worth investigating. If those who wanna put their pennies worth into the way the club is run they should stump up the money and own the thing otherwise let the new people explore what avenues work for them, the old way is not always the best way and times have changed and so has the business of running a football club or governing body of an organisation. Remove the things that have not worked in the past or have drained the club one way or another and eventually it should blossom again.
If the old ways had started to go wrong however far back you want to go surely a new approach is worth investigating. If those who wanna put their pennies worth into the way the club is run they should stump up the money and own the thing otherwise let the new people explore what avenues work for them, the old way is not always the best way and times have changed and so has the business of running a football club or governing body of an organisation. Remove the things that have not worked in the past or have drained the club one way or another and eventually it should blossom again.
the gradual removal of the old ways is what we are talking about.. however I agree you should look at new ways too, a supporters trust is one of those, but not the only one.
I'm just not sure there is a full enough appreciation of how the club was rebuilt on the back of fan participation, perhaps even becoming the culture of the club, what impact its removal or denial has one can only speculate on, but it doesn't look great.
I hope they come around and that it is more central part the businesss plan to improve long term attendances. Perhaps this summer km will look again at engagement as she said in the spring, and perhaps there has been some miscommunication or misunderstanding that can be overcome.
Nail on the head there Raz.
The club may need to influence the culture to ensure it stays relevant to the younger demographic, that's important and we need to recognise that. But as with any transition you need to have a clear idea of both where you're going to and - vitally - where you're moving from. Otherwise you may find yourself one day with a small young support, but the wealthier generations long moved on. And I think there are warning signs this may already be happening.
But back to the point, the best way to improve attendances is to improve what's happening on the pitch. Build your club year on year, find heroes who will be around for more than the odd season - Joe Gomez might have become the new Richard Rufus if he'd stayed to be part of a Charlton that showed ambition to return to the top flight - and make the fans feel they're really part of it all.
A slogan is no substitute for empathy.
I hope the club find the right blend of signings, quality, heart and commitment - and allow them to become a team over a period of time. Doing this again next year will be too much for me I think.
The more I think about it the more I feel we've done some great business in selling Gomez. Of course ideally we want to keep a hold of our best players, especially when they're home-grown but we've supposedly got around £10m for a lad that's just turned 18 and we're in no position to turn down that type of money for a young player when we're finishing mid table in the second tier of English football. Let's be realistic. Duchatelet apparently selling Liege is huge for us as well, perhaps this means even more money is going to be invested in to the squad... strangely enough, after everything that has gone on I am starting to trust both RD and KM - not sure what Bauer is like as a player but he certainly looks the real deal for the Championship. A few more faces are expected to be seen at the Valley this Summer so let's just see what happens instead of taking the negatives out of everything.
Its the rumoured combined value upfront/nextyear/addons
Thanks Raz. Nothing wrong with being an optimist I guess...
I will go with the reports in the press advising 3.5m unless those posters who insist it is higher give up a source rather than lording it over the rest of us gullible fools who are not ITK.
I believe a club employee over The BBC. Have you seen their match reports on Charlton?!!!!??!!
This is true. Our home game with Birmingham in Feb 2013. The match report and score came up as 2-1 to us FT after Kermorgant had scored that late late goal. I wasn't there and was up in Nottingham for a birthday weekend. I blissfully walked through the city centre confident we'd got a great last minute victory. Checked back later that night and we'd drawn 2-2. Tossers
I hate big word arguments I have no idea if people are proper at it or just proving who knows the better way to call each other swear word names ( before 9pm watershed )
Comments
May I politely suggest you move on?
Additionally their experience at Liege of supporters has been that the more active simply represent a problem, particularly when more controversial activities around their business plan emerge, hence they are very wary of giving any gravity to any that may publicly disagree with them. Indeed they might actually welcome the departure of a thousand or maybe less season ticket holders.
I have no clue as to what is being written.
I agree RD is a big factor.
He also imposes appointments of players and managers (the Luzon appointment being the obvious) without, IMHO, proper consultation or involvement of the CEO but I doubt that was the first time that has happened at Charlton.
I know you tried to engage and KM said no and you rightly said that you felt that was a mistake. I agree. It's the step from that to her being incompetent that I disagree with for the reasons I gave before.
I think we agree that it would be more sensible if the club used all its resources, which is how I see the bank of experience now largely located outside the organisation. But if it won't then so be it. Ultimately, people get judged on outcomes.
What a fucking naive idiot I must be.
I hope they come around and that it is more central part the businesss plan to improve long term attendances. Perhaps this summer km will look again at engagement as she said in the spring, and perhaps there has been some miscommunication or misunderstanding that can be overcome.
I also dont doubt SB was in some way trying to undermine the integrity of the Trust (i don't know about other groups/people) in the eyes of the new ownership, indeed he did so in one of our early meetings, totally without justification of course. I guess his neck was on the line at the time.
The rumours thread is for new signings
The club may need to influence the culture to ensure it stays relevant to the younger demographic, that's important and we need to recognise that. But as with any transition you need to have a clear idea of both where you're going to and - vitally - where you're moving from. Otherwise you may find yourself one day with a small young support, but the wealthier generations long moved on. And I think there are warning signs this may already be happening.
But back to the point, the best way to improve attendances is to improve what's happening on the pitch. Build your club year on year, find heroes who will be around for more than the odd season - Joe Gomez might have become the new Richard Rufus if he'd stayed to be part of a Charlton that showed ambition to return to the top flight - and make the fans feel they're really part of it all.
A slogan is no substitute for empathy.
I hope the club find the right blend of signings, quality, heart and commitment - and allow them to become a team over a period of time. Doing this again next year will be too much for me I think.
Henners will be all over you like a rash!
☺