I do think some people get too worked up about polls and surveys about the overall consensus about fans feelings about the board.
A significant portion of our fanbase are very disillusioned with our owners, it doesn't take stats and pie charts to 'prove' it. Things like that are holding us back from just getting on and tackling the issues at hand, let's use some common sense with this stuff.
So East Kent Addicks have pulled out of the Fans Forum because of poor communication.
John C gets his opportunity to really raise the issues about what tactics the Board are putting into action to achieve the strategic plan and then spent 10 minutes querying CADSA, disabled access in the West Stand and Valley Express. Exactly the issues raised at the last FF.
Craig's stance impressed me - he hit the nail on the head and the top table looked uncomfortable. He looked more a CEO than the present incumbent.
I think KM got off lightly last night - and I think her welling up after about an hour, had the desired effect on the (mostly) male, articulate, white middle aged and middle class representatives, who probably - without realising - felt slightly sorry for her. I know I would have it I'd been there.
Syd was Syd. Bless him. He really does need another hobby.
Goes without saying ...
I would rather have Waggott back than her. That's how bad she is imo.
I do think some people get too worked up about polls and surveys about the overall consensus about fans feelings about the board.
A significant portion of our fanbase are very disillusioned with our owners, it doesn't take stats and pie charts to 'prove' it. Things like that are holding us back from just getting on and tackling the issues at hand, let's use some common sense with this stuff.
But the Club think only 2% are negative / protesting...
The Trust has strong figures to the contrary from its last survey which will be published later this morning.
There is still work to do to ensure the Club appreciates the scale of the discontent.
I do think some people get too worked up about polls and surveys about the overall consensus about fans feelings about the board.
A significant portion of our fanbase are very disillusioned with our owners, it doesn't take stats and pie charts to 'prove' it. Things like that are holding us back from just getting on and tackling the issues at hand, let's use some common sense with this stuff.
I'm pretty sure you're right Tom when you say a significant number of our fans are disillusioned with what is going on right now and we have IMO seen a decent start in terms of action with the protests, the black and white campaign etc. however I would love to see a poll on here that qualifies the following in numbers/percentage terms
Who is still happy with RD's reign?
Who is concerned but still thinks they should be given time to turn it round?
Who is unhappy and wants them out?
I appreciate there is a whole science to opinion polls and the type of questions you ask, language used, if those are a little basic then I would welcome any tweaks. Is it possible for CL to run a poll? Apologies if this has been suggested or done before, or it can't be done. I'm just genuinely interested to see what the actual figures might be.
I'm interested because I think I've seen some interesting counter statements on here over the last few days from some of the people who don't post that regularly and aren't as say so anti RD as some of us.
And yes I appreciate we are only 500 members (or something like that) and there are other Charlton fans outside of this forum, I'm just curious
Glad I asked about my burning question about Roland's motives for buying the club but furious with myself and others for not challenging KM on the her response that selling players to break even cannot possibly go hand-in-hand with havIng a Premiership ambition. The reality, with this financial policy, has to be that the REALISTIC best expectations that we can have under the present owner is to remain 'competitive' in the Championship.
Perhaps this is the most informative thing we learned on Tuesday. I would have had more respect for KM if she had come out and said exactly that.
Of course, there is always the hope that we have a team that 'over-performs' and that, come January time, we are somewhere near the top 6. We will then see if RM's assertion is real that the owner reassesses things every January and (it was strongly suggested) could invest to strengthen the squad if promotion looked possible.
I just wish KM had been honest and said that Championship survival on a more sound footing was the realistic ambition and that reaching the Premier League is no more than a hope than an 'ambition'.
Well that was a jolly "talking shop" with lots of first-name use, bonhomie ("tell us about the goal Jacko") and not a lot of substance. The presentation was there to be picked at, for instance "please outline the key objectives over the next five years that will help us meet the strategic targets you have outlined", but all we seemed to get was a glut of questions focusing on operational stuff and things that had obviously been done to death on previous fans' forums. Later there were opportunities to ask about whether £9m on transfers, compared to £1.1m, was reflected on the team's performance and also getting Murray's view on Duchalet's judge of character bearing in mind that his comment about the key relationship in a football club being between the owner and the manager, the former needing to have implicit trust in the latter. Duchalet has sacked three guys he has picked in the last 18 months. Also, If you are going to a meeting with prepared questions, always have a follow-up. The panel was let off the hook on a number of occasions, for instance the initial question about access to the QPR game was allowed to die a death.
In my view the guy that opened from the fans' side of the table set the wrong tone by outlining how the meeting would be run and then asking Katrien what she felt were the fans' main issues. Just tell her. Finally, there were clearly people there with individual agendas, namely; " the Crossbars fiasco has turned my footballing life upside down". Ok, but not for this forum. And then we had "VIPs feel disenfranchised and the club should do something for them". Bollocks, I was a VIP once, felt it was a good deal, was happy to sign-up to it and didn't expect anything once it had concluded.
The upshot was that the panel was never ruffled, one guy said absolutely nothing, Katrien had an easy ride and kept a smile on her face and Murray just sat there playing with his phone. I wasn't there on the night or involved in the process so can't comment on how the fans' side of things was organised and prepared but feel that this was a massive opportunity that was wasted.
The opening question was specifically designed to tell us if the club was able to articulate what the problem was. KM repeated her opening thought that it was all about not knowing the strategy, and RM twice avoided the question entirely.
You may disagree, but I think that's hugely significant. If you cannot define a problem, it makes it pretty tricky to solve it and pretty tricky to be sure it's still solved later on. To me what it betrayed is that they genuinely didn't know the answer, and that speaks of a team trying desperately to be understood but giving nowhere near enough energy to seeking to understand. No wonder supporters feel disenfranchised.
Leaving the soft stuff to one side, if you're running a business and don't know your market you are likely to fail.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. It's a weak question to ask because a smart person wouldn't have answered it. Why risk bringing issues to the table that others may not of thought of? We should have had a focused meeting targeting the key issues and demanding answers but it never happened.
Even better to have your own answer, which is what Murray did - he tried the smart 'different people think different things' and referring to other clubs. KM had already kicked off the meeting by telling us what our problem was, and wasn't comfortable with being pressed.
The smartest answer was to pick up the theme of dialogue, which has been running since the public meeting at the start of the year and was picked up by a Trust survey and the B&W campaign more recently. That was the safe one. If I'd got an answer other than 'I just said something' or 'Keith Downing' I wouldn't have pressed it.
Do you not think that it spoke volumes that they tripped over that question?
Sorry, but no I don't. If I'd had been in her shoes I wouldn't have answered it either as there is no benefit in doing so. In my view it would have been far better to ask direct questions about some of the under-pins to the presentation and then move onto other key issues such as managerial selection and turnover, transfer process and squad size, treatment of and communication with fans, etc. Ask an initial question and then keep going until an answer is obtained. This never really happened, the issue about getting into the QPR game was a key example of this.
I know it's not easy in these type of forums but lessons must be learned so that any run in the future have a chance to be more productive from the fans' perspective.
Watched the steam late last night ,first time back on this site tonight. The meeting was for me disappointing,having arranged questions for the board we were given very little answers. Indeed the CEO stated more than once that we have been over this point time and time again.She still was not giving answers. She must get the fans on board some of whom have a great depth of knowledge of this club and have held positions within the old supporters club. Ifeel she has just dug a deeper hole for herself and can not seewhat is facing her just afew weeks away. 2% of fans is nothing to what she will be coming up against next time.
Exactly. She wasn't giving answers because she was not pressed to do so. Nice and easy.
Glad I asked about my burning question about Roland's motives for buying the club but furious with myself and others for not challenging KM on the her response that selling players to break even cannot possibly go hand-in-hand with havIng a Premiership ambition. The reality, with this financial policy, has to be that the REALISTIC best expectations that we can have under the present owner is to remain 'competitive' in the Championship.
Perhaps this is the most informative thing we learned on Tuesday. I would have had more respect for KM if she had come out and said exactly that.
Of course, there is always the hope that we have a team that 'over-performs' and that, come January time, we are somewhere near the top 6. We will then see if RM's assertion is real that the owner reassesses things every January and (it was strongly suggested) could invest to strengthen the squad if promotion looked possible.
I just wish KM had been honest and said that Championship survival on a more sound footing was the realistic ambition and that reaching the Premier League is no more than a hope than an 'ambition'.
Do others see it my way?
I noticed a few times that as soon as the floor had asked their question, ME would be on hand to take the mic back. Was this a reliberate ploy to prevent fans for asking follow up questions when it became clear that the panel had avoided the question?
Seems a reasonable assumption from words uttered that the strategy is to keep within a budget that ensures Championship survival, not a budget needed to make a dash for promotion.
If we get lucky and are in the frame in January the budget might be increased.
Would not be unreasonable to just say so in black and white.
With all the threads of the last couple of days I haven't noticed any comment on the "£4.5M" that RD has invested in The Valley. We know about the pitch, the seats, Vista lounge and the big screen but does that really add up to that much ?
I did comment on this earlier - the consensus seemed to be a blooming expensive sofa.
KM also then went on to say £2.5M later...
I assumed the 4.5 includes Sparrows Lane and 2.5 of that relates to The Valley.
Please see the Trust's comments following the meeting on our website here.
93% agree that fans should protest about the way the Club is being run. Slightly more than the 2% the CEO mentioned on Tuesday. Maybe she was getting confused with her new variable rate mortgage
Glad I asked about my burning question about Roland's motives for buying the club but furious with myself and others for not challenging KM on the her response that selling players to break even cannot possibly go hand-in-hand with havIng a Premiership ambition. The reality, with this financial policy, has to be that the REALISTIC best expectations that we can have under the present owner is to remain 'competitive' in the Championship.
Perhaps this is the most informative thing we learned on Tuesday. I would have had more respect for KM if she had come out and said exactly that.
Of course, there is always the hope that we have a team that 'over-performs' and that, come January time, we are somewhere near the top 6. We will then see if RM's assertion is real that the owner reassesses things every January and (it was strongly suggested) could invest to strengthen the squad if promotion looked possible.
I just wish KM had been honest and said that Championship survival on a more sound footing was the realistic ambition and that reaching the Premier League is no more than a hope than an 'ambition'.
Do others see it my way?
I noticed a few times that as soon as the floor had asked their question, ME would be on hand to take the mic back. Was this a reliberate ploy to prevent fans for asking follow up questions when it became clear that the panel had avoided the question?
Deliberate or not, he always does. So if you want to follow up you have to shout & then you can appear to be "aggressive". Plus they say you've had your turn, we're moving on.
This is why you need a small meeting of competent and strong individuals and that is why the club have resisted this.
Glad I asked about my burning question about Roland's motives for buying the club but furious with myself and others for not challenging KM on the her response that selling players to break even cannot possibly go hand-in-hand with havIng a Premiership ambition. The reality, with this financial policy, has to be that the REALISTIC best expectations that we can have under the present owner is to remain 'competitive' in the Championship.
Perhaps this is the most informative thing we learned on Tuesday. I would have had more respect for KM if she had come out and said exactly that.
Of course, there is always the hope that we have a team that 'over-performs' and that, come January time, we are somewhere near the top 6. We will then see if RM's assertion is real that the owner reassesses things every January and (it was strongly suggested) could invest to strengthen the squad if promotion looked possible.
I just wish KM had been honest and said that Championship survival on a more sound footing was the realistic ambition and that reaching the Premier League is no more than a hope than an 'ambition'.
Do others see it my way?
I noticed a few times that as soon as the floor had asked their question, ME would be on hand to take the mic back. Was this a reliberate ploy to prevent fans for asking follow up questions when it became clear that the panel had avoided the question?
Deliberate or not, he always does. So if you want to follow up you have to shout & then you can appear to be "aggressive". Plus they say you've had your turn, we're moving on.
This is why you need a small meeting of competent and strong individuals and that is why the club have resisted this.
The ability to ask follow-up questions is crucial. That's your "punch in the gut" opportunity
RD won't change his main aim, as that is his only reason for buying Charlton. His main aim is to see if he can run Charlton at break even ie without losing money.
This is a laudable, but a deluded aim. It just may have proved successful, if all the other teams were competing on a level playing field. However, FFP is no longer working towards all the other clubs also breaking even. Clubs can lose up to £13M per season and £45M over 3 seasons. Many clubs, rightly or wrongly will be throwing far more money into their squads than us. Most fans suspected the football league would back track, yet RD who is apparently cleverer than anyone else, did not see this coming. Extremely poor judgement IMO.
The most likely scenario of us breaking even whilst many other clubs spend millions more, is that we will be relegated, like Blackpool and Yeovil most recently.
In order to maintain this aim RD must have a CEO and coach that will back him come what may. The vast majority of competent CEO's and coaches would not.
We are therefore left with a CEO in name only. The CEO cannot answer any searching questions honestly, because she either has to admit that the strategy is flawed and will never work, in which case she will be fired, or has to lie that black is white. Example, her stating that all of our coaches, appointed in the last 18 months, have been a success.
Yes Meire is incompetent and is making ridiculous decisions, perhaps if she was replaced matters may improve. They certainly would if a competent replaced her, but we have no guarantees that a competent would replace her.
RD's is not looking for a strong competent CEO to run the club and challenge him where necessary. He wants someone to do as they are told, which is why Meire was appointed.
The same goes for the coach. The criteria for selection is primarily, that they will do as they are told, without question or complaint. Whether they are any good or not seems to be somewhat immaterial.
So where do we go from here ?
I think as long as Meire is still with us, then it is right to attempt dialogue with her.
She is clearly out of her depth and doesn't even appear to know what is going on with regard to some matters. Meire does not want to appear incapable by "leaning on the supporters", but perhaps it is slightly dawning on her that she must.
Meire can clearly do with some better managerial support, which is also sadly lacking.
However, she is deluded if she believes only 2% of the fan base are seriously unhappy. So as well as dialogue we also need to show her and RD that it is not only 2%.
Therefore some sort of action should go ahead at the televised Ipswich game. Something peaceful, a show of unity for those that are unhappy, that will not impinge on others, will not turn violent and will not cause health & safety issues, which concerns some.
The best way, taking into account the above, for the cameras to see this, is for all the supporters who are unhappy to turn their backs on the field of play at an agreed time or enter the stadium late, so we are taking our seats within 5 mins of kick off.
Now I fully back the team and do not want to affect them. So perhaps any back turning should be done when the players have exited the field at half time, as many will not being purchasing food & drink in any case.
NB black & white scarves & balloons are still a good idea as they are visual & a demonstration outside the West is still fine by me.
Covered End 9.5 out of 10. MOM.
To show Katrien Meire and the football world that the The majority are unhappy with the Status Quo there needs to be a
STAND UP IF YOU WANT OUR CHARLTON BACK.
This needs to be inside the ground with all 3 parts of the stadium joining in.
Hard to know the best time to do this but with the cameras there, the opportunity mustn't be missed.
The continued personally abused of the CEO will turn into the biggest own goal of the season, because she will play the victim and garner support, even thou she is so out of sync with the majority of our fan base.
Although what KM had to say about the Club's strategy was couched in generalities and was very short on the practical steps needed to achieve the objectives (i.e. it was more akin to a 'wish list'), I don't think there is much doubt that RD's overarching aim is to somehow survive in the Championship whilst breaking even or get as close to that position as possible.
In view of the relative demise of Financial Fair Play and the Network (two main planks of his original plan), the only way he is going to get anywhere close to that is through the the constant development, acquisition and sale of players at a profit. KM had quite a bit to say about that and, interestingly, observed that the average player sales achieved by Championship clubs was £1.7 million. I'm not sure how she knows that figure given the prevalence of undisclosed fees (unless it's based on the previous year's accounts), but I have little doubt that the level of player sales is one of RD's key performance indicators and targets for KM. This explains RD's investment in the Academy and the recruitment of young players from Europe on long contracts in the hope that some of them will 'come good' in the shop window of the Championship and attract large fees.
In short, there doesn't appear to be any real ambition in football terms to build a side which might have a chance of promotion - as soon as offers are made, players will be sold and talk of "Premiership aspirations" is pure window dressing. This is not a proposition which will build the supporter base; quite the contrary, it will lead to a haemorrhage in the existing support and the indications are that it is already doing so.
Two other sources of increased income were mentioned by KM, the first of which was the receipt of more money from the Premier League. I don't know if those figures have been finalised, although I doubt that they will make a material difference and, as KM herself acknowledged during a Radio 4 programme with Evan Davis, it is not something that we can rely upon. In any event, it ignores the 'prune juice economics' of football - history tells us that a significant amount of the additional funds will find their way into players' and agents' pockets.
The other means of cutting losses discussed by KM is a significant increase in gates. The reality, of course, is that however the offering is dressed up, the only way of achieving this is through better results on the field. Unfortunately, we are heading pretty swiftly in the opposite direction.
As to the meeting itself, one positive was the Club's commitment to ongoing dialogue, albeit that KM has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table as a result of sustained supporter pressure (despite her protestations to the contrary). The change in content and the filming of the Fans' Forum is to be welcomed, as are the proposed strategy meetings, although I expect they will be tightly 'managed' and I have real doubts as to whether RD will really be listening. Still, some progress has been made and we can only hope that the regime will enter into discussions in the right spirit. Richard Murray's point about 'the vacuum' post-RD was well made, although quite how that could be addressed is unclear.
The big negatives for me were the ridiculous attempt by KM to try and defend the indefensible in terms of the hiring and firing of coaches and the denigration en masse of the supporters who protested last Saturday behind the West Stand, despite the fact that the vast majority were not personally abusing her. I found that disingenuous and deeply distasteful. As one supporter at the meeting remarked, we have a perfectly legitimate right to protest and make our feelings known and her attempts at 'divide and rule' and silencing future protest will, in my view, prove counter-productive. Here was an opportunity at the to show some humility and recognise that mistakes had been made but that was cast to the wind.
All that said, I don't believe that KM, as a subordinate, is the real problem and I doubt that fixating on her is going to achieve anything. She has managed to piss off a large proportion of supporters (you can smell the burnt bridges) but would any replacement really do anything other than espouse Roland's philosophy and tow the party line ?
I think our biggest problems are:
- RD's lack of ambition for CAFC. Charlton supporters are not unrealistic and recognise that, as a mid-ranking Championship club, the odds of us getting promoted are slim in the current climate. There must, however, be an element of hope. If, for example, RD was in charge in the 1990s, I very much doubt that we'd ever have reached the Premier League, as players like Rufus and Kinsella would have been sold off before there was ever a chance to build a successful team around them.
- the complete lack of stability and continuity at the club - ironically, the very antithesis of Richard Murray's approach in the 1990s and first half of the next decade. The most important person at any club is the manager/chief coach but RD clearly doesn't see it that way. He sees them as expendable and he knows best. This is also mirrored in relation to other support staff at the club.
- generally poor player recruitment. There have been some notable exceptions, notably JBG, but the overall hit rate has been poor. To make matters worse, this has been compounded by giving most of these players long contracts, which represent an ongoing drain on the club's finances.
- RD's stubbornness, inflexibility and apparent unwillingness to amend his approach in the light of experience since the January 2014 takeover. I found the comparison he made between himself and Alan Turing in the article published by the Trust embarrassing and disturbing in equal measure. I don't think he is going to be too interested in what supporters think - he certainly wasn't at Standard Liege, where he sold the best generation of young players they had produced for many years.
Overall, then, the prognosis is not good, although I don't think any of us really expected too much positive to come out from Tuesday's meeting, notwithstanding all the hard work put in by attendees and others by way of preparation. At least the door is open for further dialogue.
The million dollar question is where we go from here. I think an 'RD out' objective is unachievable at present and probably too simplistic, although I think the pressure must be maintained on him and KM in order to create the right sort of backcloth and context for discussions about a change of approach. If RD remains completely intransigent, then we all have a decision to make about whether we are prepared to be part of his interesting 'football experiment'. In terms of the next step, I am certainly not in favour of disrupting the Ipswich game itself but would like to see a large protest from our supporters to demonstrate to RD and KM that we are not prepared to passively accept the inept way in which they are running our club. I am sure some good ideas will be formulated over the next week. Personally, I like the idea of taking our seats 10 minutes into the game - an much emptier than usual stadium and chanting behind the West Stand would be impossible to ignore - although I fear we may lack the necessary Germanic discipline.
As "open meetings" go I have seen a lot worse but it is hard to ignore the lost opportunity.
No matter the reasoned entreaties from the attendees there is not only no appetite but precious little understanding of the need for change. I recognise many are disappointed a more forthright "inquisition" was not in evidence but there is a good reason. Unsurprisingly "the club" hijacked the agenda and seized the "Meeting Chair". It is hard to hit the target when "someone" moved the goalposts.
The OS stated the meeting was called to "address supporter concerns". If the intent were to allow an "open and constructive dialogue" why take the Chair especially when you are the key note speaker.
"The Chairperson" controlled the meeting well but in terms of the "stated aims" due to the clear "conflict of interest" the meeting, from minute one, was not going to deliver the desired end result. The club through its actions for whatever reason depressingly and foolishly missed a huge opportunity. Faced with an open goal they ran away. As a result we are all the poorer. Lack of experience, of respect, of confidence? What are they frightened of?
As an exercise in representing a professional organisation it was disappointing. I know none of qualities of the attending club personnel. However watching the first few moments did you think we were dealing with a well organised cohesive "team" of professionals, as people shuffled about collecting drinks, sorting out jackets, doing whatever as the key speaker started the meeting? Were they even introduced?
Was Mr Jackson a necessary attendee? Since when do players form part of the executive?
Guys you were representing a professional club to clients who have given up their time to help address the clubs problems. You do understand you have problems? Can you not at least attend as team and show respect to the attendees and be on time? Would it have hurt to even be "suited & booted"?
On a night of frankly surreal statements I doubt if an opening line was ever more accurate or revealing.
"I have invited the others to attend because Charlton Athletic is run by a team. No one person, it is not me running the club (NB The video sound for the next 15 seconds is then lost)
Somehow such news comes as no surprise. However to then seek to control the evening in the furtherance of some personal protection plan does not I am afraid quite fulfil any objective on any scale of customer satisfaction.
Others have seized on most of the "highlights". I will for the sake of PL54s Saturday add just a few comments.
For me almost across every discussion, there was a lack of working knowledge where the club was unable to move beyond its set "mantra". You can but surmise only an owner as remote from the club and with as little working knowledge of the game as ours would accept it. Just keep those budgets rolling in Ms Meire.
Has there been a more bizarre senior executive statement in the history of the game than the comment concerning the appointment of 4 coaches? It should be framed and put in the museum.
If the appointments were so good why did you have to sack those coaches literally months later? Would not some part of the normal brain just for moment wonder how these coaches are so good when they arrive yet so crap some months later? Who and what is the common denominator? Absolutely nothing to do with the lack of resources in probably the most competitive division on the planet?
If the club is performing so successfully why are we regularly having to throw coaches out the door for their failure.
Mind you help was at hand with the "Every coach must love Roland" line. Did Mr Murray really say the most important aspect of appointing a coach is he gets on with Roland? Forget industry and market knowledge, forget coaching experience, forget Championship experience just become Rolands' friend, mention you have watched Charlton twice and the contract for the next one up is as good as yours.
Actually the way it is going he probably has a point.
In general terms I had not realised the lack of management oversight and accountability was so serious. In virtually every aspect of the club failings discussed the common theme was either "Well what did you want us to do about it?" or "Well we told the Fans Forum" - whether it was Vista Lounge, Disabled, Valley Express or Season Ticket issues. Mr Murray spoke of a vacuum. He was right only the vacuum is one of any discernible customer service standard or "piggingly" obvious common sense.
They seem to expect either the Fans Forum to communicate to their customers or the client to sort out club errors.
Not an iota of ownership. No evidence of any management checks & balances or any client management skills.
Going forward of great concern is the player recruitment process. It is not fit for purpose. In response to an excellent question we are informed;
- If a Head Coach indicates the need to strengthen the squad he tells me the type of player and the qualities he wants
- We have UK scouts under the control of Mark Stow who is targeting possible players in the 17-21 age range
- We have scouts in Germany, in Spain, in Hungary and apparently still in Belgium
- We will coordinate with Belgium scouts (really the data analysts) to determine the "approved" options available.
- The options are run by the Head Coach and I will subject to the clubs finances negotiate to sign the player
Completely bereft of any Championship experience it is a severely limited and crucially unproven talent pool. Based on the very analysis of Mr Murray of this seasons challenges we indeed face our very own "Groundhog day".
Sadly I need to refer to the whole nature of the current friction between the club and it supporters. We again had the unedifying debate concerning the nature of certain protests against the senior executive.
I can but reiterate our concerns & approach cannot be about the personalities involved. It cannot be about being female nor about being Belgian nor about being a recluse. The protests, campaigns and meetings have to be about the performance of the club under the current owner and executive.
It is about the performance of function in failing to act in the best interest of Charlton Athletic, nothing more nothing less. As personalities I have as much interest in Ms Meire and M. Duchatelet as they have in me. None.
Similarly it is time for the senior executive to lose her gender card. Ms Meire it is not about you individually. It is about the job you are doing. The abuse, the insults and the criticisms are aimed at the Senior Executive who just happens to be female and Belgian whereby a few people are simply using your characteristics to offend. It is an unattractive and largely unacceptable industry trait but you have chosen to work in an industry where industrial language/ actions is/are commonplace. You were exposed to nothing worse than your work colleagues regularly experience. If the senior executive were a short fat bald hirsute hobbitt with haliotis some protestors would invariably focus on each of those characteristics to cause offense.
This issue has to go. It is an inappropriate diversion. It is damaging the club. It is a barrier to progress.
The comments above have addressed the meeting on Tuesday. For me it was entirely complementary to the recent protest, the Black & White and We Want our Charlton Back/ Duchatelet Out campaigns. Like many others I do not agree with certain excesses but they are all strands of the same mission. We all seek a change for the better. To all of those who have spent their own time and money in furthering our interests across all of the above initiatives I can as just one supporter offer my sincere thanks – thank you.
Sadly however it seems the journey has only just begun.
Although what KM had to say about the Club's strategy was couched in generalities and was very short on the practical steps needed to achieve the objectives (i.e. it was more akin to a 'wish list'), I don't think there is much doubt that RD's overarching aim is to somehow survive in the Championship whilst breaking even or get as close to that position as possible.
(snipped for length)
The million dollar question is where we go from here. I think an 'RD out' objective is unachievable at present and probably too simplistic, although I think the pressure must be maintained on him and KM in order to create the right sort of backcloth and context for discussions about a change of approach. If RD remains completely intransigent, then we all have a decision to make about whether we are prepared to be part of his interesting 'football experiment'. In terms of the next step, I am certainly not in favour of disrupting the Ipswich game itself but would like to see a large protest from our supporters to demonstrate to RD and KM that we are not prepared to passively accept the inept way in which they are running our club. I am sure some good ideas will be formulated over the next week. Personally, I like the idea of taking our seats 10 minutes into the game - an much emptier than usual stadium and chanting behind the West Stand would be impossible to ignore - although I fear we may lack the necessary Germanic discipline.
I agree with much of that, although I think it's much more difficult to get the home support to behave in a unified way (as opposed to away fans), because it will always involve a very wide range of people, including casual fans. It's already been suggested the club will try to stuff parts of the stadium with comps, although this won't be entirely successful, because once you issue a certain number the actual usage falls significantly. In addition to that the range of attitudes and approaches to the game mean that even if 93 per cent support protest, as per the trust's survey (and there are good arguments why that will be an overstatement) I doubt if you'd get 30 per cent to remain on the concourse, which visually may be ineffective and will be spun again as "a small minority".
For me almost across every discussion, there was a lack of working knowledge where the club was unable to move beyond its set "mantra". You can but surmise only an owner as remote from the club and with as little working knowledge of the game as ours would accept it. Just keep those budgets rolling in Ms Meire.
(Snip)
In general terms I had not realised the lack of management oversight and accountability was so serious. In virtually every aspect of the club failings discussed the common theme was either "Well what did you want us to do about it?" or "Well we told the Fans Forum" - whether it was Vista Lounge, Disabled, Valley Express or Season Ticket issues. Mr Murray spoke of a vacuum. He was right only the vacuum is one of any discernible customer service standard or "piggingly" obvious common sense.
They seem to expect either the Fans Forum to communicate to their customers or the client to sort out club errors.
Not an iota of ownership. No evidence of any management checks & balances or any client management skills.
This is why I think those who argue that it's all about the team and results miss the point. The issues are two sides of the same coin.
Although what KM had to say about the Club's strategy was couched in generalities and was very short on the practical steps needed to achieve the objectives (i.e. it was more akin to a 'wish list'), I don't think there is much doubt that RD's overarching aim is to somehow survive in the Championship whilst breaking even or get as close to that position as possible.
In view of the relative demise of Financial Fair Play and the Network (two main planks of his original plan), the only way he is going to get anywhere close to that is through the the constant development, acquisition and sale of players at a profit. KM had quite a bit to say about that and, interestingly, observed that the average player sales achieved by Championship clubs was £1.7 million. I'm not sure how she knows that figure given the prevalence of undisclosed fees (unless it's based on the previous year's accounts), but I have little doubt that the level of player sales is one of RD's key performance indicators and targets for KM. This explains RD's investment in the Academy and the recruitment of young players from Europe on long contracts in the hope that some of them will 'come good' in the shop window of the Championship and attract large fees.
In short, there doesn't appear to be any real ambition in football terms to build a side which might have a chance of promotion - as soon as offers are made, players will be sold and talk of "Premiership aspirations" is pure window dressing. This is not a proposition which will build the supporter base; quite the contrary, it will lead to a haemorrhage in the existing support and the indications are that it is already doing so.
Two other sources of increased income were mentioned by KM, the first of which was the receipt of more money from the Premier League. I don't know if those figures have been finalised, although I doubt that they will make a material difference and, as KM herself acknowledged during a Radio 4 programme with Evan Davis, it is not something that we can rely upon. In any event, it ignores the 'prune juice economics' of football - history tells us that a significant amount of the additional funds will find their way into players' and agents' pockets.
The other means of cutting losses discussed by KM is a significant increase in gates. The reality, of course, is that however the offering is dressed up, the only way of achieving this is through better results on the field. Unfortunately, we are heading pretty swiftly in the opposite direction.
As to the meeting itself, one positive was the Club's commitment to ongoing dialogue, albeit that KM has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table as a result of sustained supporter pressure (despite her protestations to the contrary). The change in content and the filming of the Fans' Forum is to be welcomed, as are the proposed strategy meetings, although I expect they will be tightly 'managed' and I have real doubts as to whether RD will really be listening. Still, some progress has been made and we can only hope that the regime will enter into discussions in the right spirit. Richard Murray's point about 'the vacuum' post-RD was well made, although quite how that could be addressed is unclear.
The big negatives for me were the ridiculous attempt by KM to try and defend the indefensible in terms of the hiring and firing of coaches and the denigration en masse of the supporters who protested last Saturday behind the West Stand, despite the fact that the vast majority were not personally abusing her. I found that disingenuous and deeply distasteful. As one supporter at the meeting remarked, we have a perfectly legitimate right to protest and make our feelings known and her attempts at 'divide and rule' and silencing future protest will, in my view, prove counter-productive. Here was an opportunity at the to show some humility and recognise that mistakes had been made but that was cast to the wind.
All that said, I don't believe that KM, as a subordinate, is the real problem and I doubt that fixating on her is going to achieve anything. She has managed to piss off a large proportion of supporters (you can smell the burnt bridges) but would any replacement really do anything other than espouse Roland's philosophy and tow the party line ?
I think our biggest problems are:
- RD's lack of ambition for CAFC. Charlton supporters are not unrealistic and recognise that, as a mid-ranking Championship club, the odds of us getting promoted are slim in the current climate. There must, however, be an element of hope. If, for example, RD was in charge in the 1990s, I very much doubt that we'd ever have reached the Premier League, as players like Rufus and Kinsella would have been sold off before there was ever a chance to build a successful team around them.
- the complete lack of stability and continuity at the club - ironically, the very antithesis of Richard Murray's approach in the 1990s and first half of the next decade. The most important person at any club is the manager/chief coach but RD clearly doesn't see it that way. He sees them as expendable and he knows best. This is also mirrored in relation to other support staff at the club.
- generally poor player recruitment. There have been some notable exceptions, notably JBG, but the overall hit rate has been poor. To make matters worse, this has been compounded by giving most of these players long contracts, which represent an ongoing drain on the club's finances.
- RD's stubbornness, inflexibility and apparent unwillingness to amend his approach in the light of experience since the January 2014 takeover. I found the comparison he made between himself and Alan Turing in the article published by the Trust embarrassing and disturbing in equal measure. I don't think he is going to be too interested in what supporters think - he certainly wasn't at Standard Liege, where he sold the best generation of young players they had produced for many years.
Overall, then, the prognosis is not good, although I don't think any of us really expected too much positive to come out from Tuesday's meeting, notwithstanding all the hard work put in by attendees and others by way of preparation. At least the door is open for further dialogue.
The million dollar question is where we go from here. I think an 'RD out' objective is unachievable at present and probably too simplistic, although I think the pressure must be maintained on him and KM in order to create the right sort of backcloth and context for discussions about a change of approach. If RD remains completely intransigent, then we all have a decision to make about whether we are prepared to be part of his interesting 'football experiment'. In terms of the next step, I am certainly not in favour of disrupting the Ipswich game itself but would like to see a large protest from our supporters to demonstrate to RD and KM that we are not prepared to passively accept the inept way in which they are running our club. I am sure some good ideas will be formulated over the next week. Personally, I like the idea of taking our seats 10 minutes into the game - an much emptier than usual stadium and chanting behind the West Stand would be impossible to ignore - although I fear we may lack the necessary Germanic discipline.
Glad I asked about my burning question about Roland's motives for buying the club but furious with myself and others for not challenging KM on the her response that selling players to break even cannot possibly go hand-in-hand with havIng a Premiership ambition. The reality, with this financial policy, has to be that the REALISTIC best expectations that we can have under the present owner is to remain 'competitive' in the Championship.
Perhaps this is the most informative thing we learned on Tuesday. I would have had more respect for KM if she had come out and said exactly that.
Of course, there is always the hope that we have a team that 'over-performs' and that, come January time, we are somewhere near the top 6. We will then see if RM's assertion is real that the owner reassesses things every January and (it was strongly suggested) could invest to strengthen the squad if promotion looked possible.
I just wish KM had been honest and said that Championship survival on a more sound footing was the realistic ambition and that reaching the Premier League is no more than a hope than an 'ambition'.
Do others see it my way?
I noticed a few times that as soon as the floor had asked their question, ME would be on hand to take the mic back. Was this a reliberate ploy to prevent fans for asking follow up questions when it became clear that the panel had avoided the question?
Deliberate or not, he always does. So if you want to follow up you have to shout & then you can appear to be "aggressive". Plus they say you've had your turn, we're moving on.
This is why you need a small meeting of competent and strong individuals and that is why the club have resisted this.
I wouldn't blame Mick per se - the club were determined to make it a q&a, which is why they insisted on chairing it themselves. I had agreed with KM in advance of the meeting that we would be allowed to work the fans side of the meeting in the way the various fans' reps and supporters had all agreed on, but it was ignored and to their detriment I feel. It was a factor in the way the evening turned out though.
@Grapevine49, it will long be a regret of mine that we didn't wrest the control of the meeting away from the club. It meant although we based many of our questions on the things you kindly put together, we never gained the momentum on the night to really press home some of those points.
There are lots of other factors involved too: such as the club running it as a panel q&a, which meant pressure was created for anyone who wanted to control the mic for any period of time to pass it on, and in turn made it impossible to focus on our four themes of strategy, execution, playing side, supporter disenfranchisement. Most questions got asked but without the incision that would have been afforded by the flow and ability to drill down.
On reflection, we missed the opportunity to respond to the slideshow in expectation we would be able to do what we had agreed with the club beforehand. I think for various reasons it was hard to ask people to be more agile around our 'script' on that particular event.
Importantly though I think we learned/confirmed a lot, and I'm particularly grateful for your analysis because it draws attention to some of the value of the evening, even if we didn't attain the objectives we ventured out with.
Glad I asked about my burning question about Roland's motives for buying the club but furious with myself and others for not challenging KM on the her response that selling players to break even cannot possibly go hand-in-hand with havIng a Premiership ambition. The reality, with this financial policy, has to be that the REALISTIC best expectations that we can have under the present owner is to remain 'competitive' in the Championship.
Perhaps this is the most informative thing we learned on Tuesday. I would have had more respect for KM if she had come out and said exactly that.
Of course, there is always the hope that we have a team that 'over-performs' and that, come January time, we are somewhere near the top 6. We will then see if RM's assertion is real that the owner reassesses things every January and (it was strongly suggested) could invest to strengthen the squad if promotion looked possible.
I just wish KM had been honest and said that Championship survival on a more sound footing was the realistic ambition and that reaching the Premier League is no more than a hope than an 'ambition'.
Do others see it my way?
I noticed a few times that as soon as the floor had asked their question, ME would be on hand to take the mic back. Was this a reliberate ploy to prevent fans for asking follow up questions when it became clear that the panel had avoided the question?
Probably more about trying to make sure that the next question could be audible for the room and for the video would be my guess?
As "open meetings" go I have seen a lot worse but it is hard to ignore the lost opportunity.
...........
I can but reiterate our concerns & approach cannot be about the personalities involved. It cannot be about being female nor about being Belgian nor about being a recluse. The protests, campaigns and meetings have to be about the performance of the club under the current owner and executive.
...........
It is about the performance of function in failing to act in the best interest of Charlton Athletic, nothing more nothing less. As personalities I have as much interest in Ms Meire and M. Duchatelet as they have in me. None. ....... Similarly it is time for the senior executive to lose her gender card. Ms Meire it is not about you individually. ........... This issue has to go. It is an inappropriate diversion. It is damaging the club. It is a barrier to progress.
Well summarised and I particularly agree with your above comments. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's all about accountability and I am not convinced that they even understand the concept of the word let alone take responsibility for it.
Glad I asked about my burning question about Roland's motives for buying the club but furious with myself and others for not challenging KM on the her response that selling players to break even cannot possibly go hand-in-hand with havIng a Premiership ambition. The reality, with this financial policy, has to be that the REALISTIC best expectations that we can have under the present owner is to remain 'competitive' in the Championship.
Perhaps this is the most informative thing we learned on Tuesday. I would have had more respect for KM if she had come out and said exactly that.
Of course, there is always the hope that we have a team that 'over-performs' and that, come January time, we are somewhere near the top 6. We will then see if RM's assertion is real that the owner reassesses things every January and (it was strongly suggested) could invest to strengthen the squad if promotion looked possible.
I just wish KM had been honest and said that Championship survival on a more sound footing was the realistic ambition and that reaching the Premier League is no more than a hope than an 'ambition'.
Do others see it my way?
I noticed a few times that as soon as the floor had asked their question, ME would be on hand to take the mic back. Was this a reliberate ploy to prevent fans for asking follow up questions when it became clear that the panel had avoided the question?
Probably more about trying to make sure that the next question could be audible for the room and for the video would be my guess?
No. Definitely to prevent follow-up questions. You do not take the mic back before the discussion is finished. I have been to many 'proper' panel discussions with >500 attendees and the problem of the next question is simply solved by having multiple roving mics. Handling it with only 20 people should be child's play, even with a single mic
Glad I asked about my burning question about Roland's motives for buying the club but furious with myself and others for not challenging KM on the her response that selling players to break even cannot possibly go hand-in-hand with havIng a Premiership ambition. The reality, with this financial policy, has to be that the REALISTIC best expectations that we can have under the present owner is to remain 'competitive' in the Championship.
Perhaps this is the most informative thing we learned on Tuesday. I would have had more respect for KM if she had come out and said exactly that.
Of course, there is always the hope that we have a team that 'over-performs' and that, come January time, we are somewhere near the top 6. We will then see if RM's assertion is real that the owner reassesses things every January and (it was strongly suggested) could invest to strengthen the squad if promotion looked possible.
I just wish KM had been honest and said that Championship survival on a more sound footing was the realistic ambition and that reaching the Premier League is no more than a hope than an 'ambition'.
Do others see it my way?
I noticed a few times that as soon as the floor had asked their question, ME would be on hand to take the mic back. Was this a reliberate ploy to prevent fans for asking follow up questions when it became clear that the panel had avoided the question?
Probably more about trying to make sure that the next question could be audible for the room and for the video would be my guess?
No. Definitely to prevent follow-up questions. You do not take the mic back before the discussion is finished. I have been to many 'proper' panel discussions with >500 attendees and the problem of the next question is simply solved by having multiple roving mics. Handling it with only 20 people should be child's play, even with a single mic
No-one needed to hand him the mic back, I didn't see anything on the video to suggest otherwise?
I do think some people get too worked up about polls and surveys about the overall consensus about fans feelings about the board.
A significant portion of our fanbase are very disillusioned with our owners, it doesn't take stats and pie charts to 'prove' it. Things like that are holding us back from just getting on and tackling the issues at hand, let's use some common sense with this stuff.
But the Club think only 2% are negative / protesting...
The Trust has strong figures to the contrary from its last survey which will be published later this morning.
There is still work to do to ensure the Club appreciates the scale of the discontent.
This is interesting.
In the video, Meire said she had signed off the Trust's minutes of the meeting on the day and showed surprise that they were not yet published. She looked like she diverted the problem to someone else in the room.
The figures since published by the Trust shows a massive difference in the size of the fanbase being unhappy with the way the club is being run and the support for more protrests (93%)! So, she must have known this vastly higher figure before she included the 2% in her presentation? She also used the 2% continuously throughout the meeting to support her arguments to ward off future protests etc. Had these figures been available before the meeting I think she would had been quite embarassed. I wonder why the publication of those minutes were mysteriously delayed? How convenient.
Apologies, just noticed that Shirty picked up this point on the previous page!!
Comments
A significant portion of our fanbase are very disillusioned with our owners, it doesn't take stats and pie charts to 'prove' it. Things like that are holding us back from just getting on and tackling the issues at hand, let's use some common sense with this stuff.
The Trust has strong figures to the contrary from its last survey which will be published later this morning.
There is still work to do to ensure the Club appreciates the scale of the discontent.
Who is still happy with RD's reign?
Who is concerned but still thinks they should be given time to turn it round?
Who is unhappy and wants them out?
I appreciate there is a whole science to opinion polls and the type of questions you ask, language used, if those are a little basic then I would welcome any tweaks. Is it possible for CL to run a poll? Apologies if this has been suggested or done before, or it can't be done. I'm just genuinely interested to see what the actual figures might be.
I'm interested because I think I've seen some interesting counter statements on here over the last few days from some of the people who don't post that regularly and aren't as say so anti RD as some of us.
And yes I appreciate we are only 500 members (or something like that) and there are other Charlton fans outside of this forum, I'm just curious
Perhaps this is the most informative thing we learned on Tuesday. I would have had more respect for KM if she had come out and said exactly that.
Of course, there is always the hope that we have a team that 'over-performs' and that, come January time, we are somewhere near the top 6. We will then see if RM's assertion is real that the owner reassesses things every January and (it was strongly suggested) could invest to strengthen the squad if promotion looked possible.
I just wish KM had been honest and said that Championship survival on a more sound footing was the realistic ambition and that reaching the Premier League is no more than a hope than an 'ambition'.
Do others see it my way?
I know it's not easy in these type of forums but lessons must be learned so that any run in the future have a chance to be more productive from the fans' perspective.
If we get lucky and are in the frame in January the budget might be increased.
Would not be unreasonable to just say so in black and white.
This is why you need a small meeting of competent and strong individuals and that is why the club have resisted this.
To show Katrien Meire and the football world that the The majority are unhappy with the Status Quo there needs to be a
STAND UP IF YOU WANT OUR CHARLTON BACK.
This needs to be inside the ground with all 3 parts of the stadium joining in.
Hard to know the best time to do this but with the cameras there, the opportunity mustn't be missed.
The continued personally abused of the CEO will turn into the biggest own goal of the season, because she will play the victim and garner support,
even thou she is so out of sync with the majority of our fan base.
In view of the relative demise of Financial Fair Play and the Network (two main planks of his original plan), the only way he is going to get anywhere close to that is through the the constant development, acquisition and sale of players at a profit. KM had quite a bit to say about that and, interestingly, observed that the average player sales achieved by Championship clubs was £1.7 million. I'm not sure how she knows that figure given the prevalence of undisclosed fees (unless it's based on the previous year's accounts), but I have little doubt that the level of player sales is one of RD's key performance indicators and targets for KM. This explains RD's investment in the Academy and the recruitment of young players from Europe on long contracts in the hope that some of them will 'come good' in the shop window of the Championship and attract large fees.
In short, there doesn't appear to be any real ambition in football terms to build a side which might have a chance of promotion - as soon as offers are made, players will be sold and talk of "Premiership aspirations" is pure window dressing. This is not a proposition which will build the supporter base; quite the contrary, it will lead to a haemorrhage in the existing support and the indications are that it is already doing so.
Two other sources of increased income were mentioned by KM, the first of which was the receipt of more money from the Premier League. I don't know if those figures have been finalised, although I doubt that they will make a material difference and, as KM herself acknowledged during a Radio 4 programme with Evan Davis, it is not something that we can rely upon. In any event, it ignores the 'prune juice economics' of football - history tells us that a significant amount of the additional funds will find their way into players' and agents' pockets.
The other means of cutting losses discussed by KM is a significant increase in gates. The reality, of course, is that however the offering is dressed up, the only way of achieving this is through better results on the field. Unfortunately, we are heading pretty swiftly in the opposite direction.
As to the meeting itself, one positive was the Club's commitment to ongoing dialogue, albeit that KM has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table as a result of sustained supporter pressure (despite her protestations to the contrary). The change in content and the filming of the Fans' Forum is to be welcomed, as are the proposed strategy meetings, although I expect they will be tightly 'managed' and I have real doubts as to whether RD will really be listening. Still, some progress has been made and we can only hope that the regime will enter into discussions in the right spirit. Richard Murray's point about 'the vacuum' post-RD was well made, although quite how that could be addressed is unclear.
The big negatives for me were the ridiculous attempt by KM to try and defend the indefensible in terms of the hiring and firing of coaches and the denigration en masse of the supporters who protested last Saturday behind the West Stand, despite the fact that the vast majority were not personally abusing her. I found that disingenuous and deeply distasteful. As one supporter at the meeting remarked, we have a perfectly legitimate right to protest and make our feelings known and her attempts at 'divide and rule' and silencing future protest will, in my view, prove counter-productive. Here was an opportunity at the to show some humility and recognise that mistakes had been made but that was cast to the wind.
All that said, I don't believe that KM, as a subordinate, is the real problem and I doubt that fixating on her is going to achieve anything. She has managed to piss off a large proportion of supporters (you can smell the burnt bridges) but would any replacement really do anything other than espouse Roland's philosophy and tow the party line ?
I think our biggest problems are:
- RD's lack of ambition for CAFC. Charlton supporters are not unrealistic and recognise that, as a mid-ranking Championship club, the odds of us getting promoted are slim in the current climate. There must, however, be an element of hope. If, for example, RD was in charge in the 1990s, I very much doubt that we'd ever have reached the Premier League, as players like Rufus and Kinsella would have been sold off before there was ever a chance to build a successful team around them.
- the complete lack of stability and continuity at the club - ironically, the very antithesis of Richard Murray's approach in the 1990s and first half of the next decade. The most important person at any club is the manager/chief coach but RD clearly doesn't see it that way. He sees them as expendable and he knows best. This is also mirrored in relation to other support staff at the club.
- generally poor player recruitment. There have been some notable exceptions, notably JBG, but the overall hit rate has been poor. To make matters worse, this has been compounded by giving most of these players long contracts, which represent an ongoing drain on the club's finances.
- RD's stubbornness, inflexibility and apparent unwillingness to amend his approach in the light of experience since the January 2014 takeover. I found the comparison he made between himself and Alan Turing in the article published by the Trust embarrassing and disturbing in equal measure. I don't think he is going to be too interested in what supporters think - he certainly wasn't at Standard Liege, where he sold the best generation of young players they had produced for many years.
Overall, then, the prognosis is not good, although I don't think any of us really expected too much positive to come out from Tuesday's meeting, notwithstanding all the hard work put in by attendees and others by way of preparation. At least the door is open for further dialogue.
The million dollar question is where we go from here. I think an 'RD out' objective is unachievable at present and probably too simplistic, although I think the pressure must be maintained on him and KM in order to create the right sort of backcloth and context for discussions about a change of approach. If RD remains completely intransigent, then we all have a decision to make about whether we are prepared to be part of his interesting 'football experiment'. In terms of the next step, I am certainly not in favour of disrupting the Ipswich game itself but would like to see a large protest from our supporters to demonstrate to RD and KM that we are not prepared to passively accept the inept way in which they are running our club. I am sure some good ideas will be formulated over the next week. Personally, I like the idea of taking our seats 10 minutes into the game - an much emptier than usual stadium and chanting behind the West Stand would be impossible to ignore - although I fear we may lack the necessary Germanic discipline.
No matter the reasoned entreaties from the attendees there is not only no appetite but precious little understanding of the need for change. I recognise many are disappointed a more forthright "inquisition" was not in evidence but there is a good reason. Unsurprisingly "the club" hijacked the agenda and seized the "Meeting Chair". It is hard to hit the target when "someone" moved the goalposts.
The OS stated the meeting was called to "address supporter concerns". If the intent were to allow an "open and constructive dialogue" why take the Chair especially when you are the key note speaker.
"The Chairperson" controlled the meeting well but in terms of the "stated aims" due to the clear "conflict of interest" the meeting, from minute one, was not going to deliver the desired end result. The club through its actions for whatever reason depressingly and foolishly missed a huge opportunity. Faced with an open goal they ran away. As a result we are all the poorer. Lack of experience, of respect, of confidence? What are they frightened of?
As an exercise in representing a professional organisation it was disappointing. I know none of qualities of the attending club personnel. However watching the first few moments did you think we were dealing with a well organised cohesive "team" of professionals, as people shuffled about collecting drinks, sorting out jackets, doing whatever as the key speaker started the meeting? Were they even introduced?
Was Mr Jackson a necessary attendee? Since when do players form part of the executive?
Guys you were representing a professional club to clients who have given up their time to help address the clubs problems. You do understand you have problems? Can you not at least attend as team and show respect to the attendees and be on time? Would it have hurt to even be "suited & booted"?
On a night of frankly surreal statements I doubt if an opening line was ever more accurate or revealing.
"I have invited the others to attend because Charlton Athletic is run by a team. No one person, it is not me running the club (NB The video sound for the next 15 seconds is then lost)
Somehow such news comes as no surprise. However to then seek to control the evening in the furtherance of some personal protection plan does not I am afraid quite fulfil any objective on any scale of customer satisfaction.
Others have seized on most of the "highlights". I will for the sake of PL54s Saturday add just a few comments.
For me almost across every discussion, there was a lack of working knowledge where the club was unable to move beyond its set "mantra". You can but surmise only an owner as remote from the club and with as little working knowledge of the game as ours would accept it. Just keep those budgets rolling in Ms Meire.
Has there been a more bizarre senior executive statement in the history of the game than the comment concerning the appointment of 4 coaches? It should be framed and put in the museum.
If the appointments were so good why did you have to sack those coaches literally months later? Would not some part of the normal brain just for moment wonder how these coaches are so good when they arrive yet so crap some months later? Who and what is the common denominator? Absolutely nothing to do with the lack of resources in probably the most competitive division on the planet?
If the club is performing so successfully why are we regularly having to throw coaches out the door for their failure.
Mind you help was at hand with the "Every coach must love Roland" line. Did Mr Murray really say the most important aspect of appointing a coach is he gets on with Roland? Forget industry and market knowledge, forget coaching experience, forget Championship experience just become Rolands' friend, mention you have watched Charlton twice and the contract for the next one up is as good as yours.
Actually the way it is going he probably has a point.
In general terms I had not realised the lack of management oversight and accountability was so serious. In virtually every aspect of the club failings discussed the common theme was either "Well what did you want us to do about it?" or "Well we told the Fans Forum" - whether it was Vista Lounge, Disabled, Valley Express or Season Ticket issues. Mr Murray spoke of a vacuum. He was right only the vacuum is one of any discernible customer service standard or "piggingly" obvious common sense.
They seem to expect either the Fans Forum to communicate to their customers or the client to sort out club errors.
Not an iota of ownership. No evidence of any management checks & balances or any client management skills.
Going forward of great concern is the player recruitment process. It is not fit for purpose. In response to an excellent question we are informed;
- If a Head Coach indicates the need to strengthen the squad he tells me the type of player and the qualities he wants
- We have UK scouts under the control of Mark Stow who is targeting possible players in the 17-21 age range
- We have scouts in Germany, in Spain, in Hungary and apparently still in Belgium
- We will coordinate with Belgium scouts (really the data analysts) to determine the "approved" options available.
- The options are run by the Head Coach and I will subject to the clubs finances negotiate to sign the player
Completely bereft of any Championship experience it is a severely limited and crucially unproven talent pool. Based on the very analysis of Mr Murray of this seasons challenges we indeed face our very own "Groundhog day".
Sadly I need to refer to the whole nature of the current friction between the club and it supporters. We again had the unedifying debate concerning the nature of certain protests against the senior executive.
I can but reiterate our concerns & approach cannot be about the personalities involved. It cannot be about being female nor about being Belgian nor about being a recluse. The protests, campaigns and meetings have to be about the performance of the club under the current owner and executive.
It is about the performance of function in failing to act in the best interest of Charlton Athletic, nothing more nothing less. As personalities I have as much interest in Ms Meire and M. Duchatelet as they have in me. None.
Similarly it is time for the senior executive to lose her gender card. Ms Meire it is not about you individually. It is about the job you are doing. The abuse, the insults and the criticisms are aimed at the Senior Executive who just happens to be female and Belgian whereby a few people are simply using your characteristics to offend. It is an unattractive and largely unacceptable industry trait but you have chosen to work in an industry where industrial language/ actions is/are commonplace. You were exposed to nothing worse than your work colleagues regularly experience. If the senior executive were a short fat bald hirsute hobbitt with haliotis some protestors would invariably focus on each of those characteristics to cause offense.
This issue has to go. It is an inappropriate diversion. It is damaging the club. It is a barrier to progress.
The comments above have addressed the meeting on Tuesday. For me it was entirely complementary to the recent protest, the Black & White and We Want our Charlton Back/ Duchatelet Out campaigns. Like many others I do not agree with certain excesses but they are all strands of the same mission. We all seek a change for the better. To all of those who have spent their own time and money in furthering our interests across all of the above initiatives I can as just one supporter offer my sincere thanks – thank you.
Sadly however it seems the journey has only just begun.
There are lots of other factors involved too: such as the club running it as a panel q&a, which meant pressure was created for anyone who wanted to control the mic for any period of time to pass it on, and in turn made it impossible to focus on our four themes of strategy, execution, playing side, supporter disenfranchisement. Most questions got asked but without the incision that would have been afforded by the flow and ability to drill down.
On reflection, we missed the opportunity to respond to the slideshow in expectation we would be able to do what we had agreed with the club beforehand. I think for various reasons it was hard to ask people to be more agile around our 'script' on that particular event.
Importantly though I think we learned/confirmed a lot, and I'm particularly grateful for your analysis because it draws attention to some of the value of the evening, even if we didn't attain the objectives we ventured out with.
In the video, Meire said she had signed off the Trust's minutes of the meeting on the day and showed surprise that they were not yet published. She looked like she diverted the problem to someone else in the room.
The figures since published by the Trust shows a massive difference in the size of the fanbase being unhappy with the way the club is being run and the support for more protrests (93%)! So, she must have known this vastly higher figure before she included the 2% in her presentation? She also used the 2% continuously throughout the meeting to support her arguments to ward off future protests etc. Had these figures been available before the meeting I think she would had been quite embarassed. I wonder why the publication of those minutes were mysteriously delayed? How convenient.
Apologies, just noticed that Shirty picked up this point on the previous page!!