Not all of us think it's the brightest move to get Roland out. Using his money more wisely than he is would be better.
Sadly, that reads like "He can stay and keep pumping his money only if I'm (we are) allowed to dictate what it's spent on"
I think you have to twist it to read it that way.
One question to illustrate it: if you had £9m to spend on incoming transfers, do you think it could be more wisely spent than on players like Polish Pete or Lepoint?
A few comments from some conversations I have had with people since the meeting on Tuesday. Whether this is spin or otherwise, not sure. However, the people i have spoken to have been honest and fair with me in other circumstances, so I tend to believe, at least, the spirit in which it has been said.
* The club knew that they had to do something as it was clear the protests would grow, thus the meeting. * Effort was put into the presentation because they were keen to get over positive messages about long time plans but didn't really think about the questions they might be asked. The plan with answering questions was to try to be honest and didn't have any answers prepared. * Thought the opening outline of the issues from fans was clear and raised some genuine concerns. They were worried that they would be hammered in questioning, but thought this didn't happen. Felt that they were let off the hook with some of the questions asked and too many people making long statements rather than putting questions. * Felt that a number of the questions were about important issues, but ones that should be dealt with in other forums, especially ones about specific operational problems. Felt this took up too much of the meeting and therefore didn't get to the key issues. * It hadn't occurred to them that the way the meeting was arranged and managed might have a negative effect on how people perceive them. Was a surprise that a meeting billed as a round table between KM and RM and a smallish group of fans, but was actually a panel, with a top table to a bigger audience (including club employees) might be considered in a less than positive way. There had been some talk about having a bigger panel with other people in key roles, but decided not to do this. * On a similar note, it had not occurred to them how important the language used is. That saying 'them' and 'their' to describe fans, instead of talking about 'us' and how 'we' are going to get out of this together, might be considered less than positive was a surprise. * The desire to communicate more with fans and in a better and open way is an honest one and they are looking at how this can be done going forward. They seem very keen on the openness bit and want more filming of meetings. One suggestion is live streaming and taking questions online if it can be done. There is an awareness that there is a long way to go but want to do better. * They are monitoring social media but are aware that they are not using it properly to talk to fans and get out the key messages. This is being looked at. * They are pleased with the Vaz Te signing and know that the playing squad is one of the major issues with fans. There is also a strong belief that if we start winning more than we lose, much of the dissatisfaction will melt away. * They see groups like CAST as important, but think that they are only one voice out of many. They are conscious that the trust do not represent all fans and are actually seen in a negative way by some fans. Want to get broadest range of views possible.
So this might be all spin, as I said, I think there is some truth in the way it was said to me. My view is that there are some interesting and positive things in all of this, but there is quite a lot of naivety in what is going on. Also, all of this is against a backdrop of what RD thinks and does, which is still not clear, so it might be that, whatever the good intentions, things won't happen. We will see.
In other news (not seen this elsewhere, but I might have missed it) look out for a new (interim) signing in a different sphere to the playing squad, coming our way this week. It is a sign that the club is taking some of what is being said seriously and trying to make things better.
Good news at the end but I find this a frustrating post. They should not have been at all surprised because many of these points were directly discussed with KM the day before, including how the panel would be badly received, how we would be focused if we were allowed to manage our side of the meeting, and how inviting so many fans would make the meeting less representative, not more.
I don't have any issue with accepting there is good will but the naivety is breathtaking - and when people are trying to help you, bloody well listen.
The club needs to recognise that it is unrealistic and divisive to try to hear every single view from every single fan. Ultimately that is a plan to do nothing, because you can always find someone who agrees with you even if the groundswell is the opposite. This was the case in point with the club shop employee's contribution.
CASTrust is not the answer to every question but what we did do successfully I believe is bring all the fans reps together to present a consensus of the views from supporters represented, and it was a collaborative effort not seen so much these days. This, I believe, is a lesson for club and fans alike.
Not directly related to most recent posts but. Last year KM did ask on the FF for volunteers to help the club with a target 20 type group, I was the only group (CAS Trust - its not called CAST BTW) to volunteer its services.
The initiative being under the remit of club development, under Lisa Squires i know rik of old began trying to meet with her. Its something we had been pushing for since the first time we full began to fully engage with the club under Bradshaw.
Altho that man had his detractors he did see the value of a joint statement and collaborative approach. We began in ernest with Fill the Valley a leaflet campaign promoting football for a fiver, and also dubbed Knock up your neighbours, we later looked at the possibility of marketing a whole block. It wasnt quite the finished article but it was the beginnings of something.
We wanted to formalise the group with a small working group and larger focus group. things got derailed as the club began to focus on being sold and then taken over, then kensells season ticket debacle pretty much ignored the suggestions he received, and that was that.
I just finished watching it , to those that haven't it's all been well documented on here by those present and others who have watched it so i personally wouldn't watch it unless you have plenty of time on your hands or you're a bit sick and like to feel awkward on occasion
If ever another one of these happens it needs to be filled with people with bite like airman not people who love the sound of their own voice
I'll take that on the chin, I was overly verbose on the night for sure.
That said we have to acknowledge that the club made the evening what it was, not the fans. I cannot for the life of me imagine why the club thought sticking JJ on the panel would help the conversation along. The issue ahead of the meeting was one of trust, and I personally feel the club acted in bad faith on the night in various ways - even if they did so with the best intentions, they should have done what they said they would do and been open to an outcome that would please both sides.
Not sure who who was but there were a couple of good orators on there who were calm and composed with their approach It's a thank less task but I'm truly grateful to the cool heads Rikofold and co amongst our support who have made me think a bit more about my own take on things which previously was get em out no matter what but that's not a realistic approach
Not sure who who was but there were a couple of good orators on there who were calm and composed with their approach It's a thank less task but I'm truly grateful to the cool heads Rikofold and co amongst our support who have made me think a bit more about my own take on things which previously was get em out no matter what but that's not a realistic approach
Although I'd still like em out !!
Personally, I'd like them to use their money to better effect (for themselves as well as for us!). Doesn't have to be perfect in my own eyes, not my money, but to see good management decisions are being made with it to support the admirable objectives. If they can't or won't do that, then I think there's a risk to the club that could hurt us for years to come - and I'd rather they passed it on to someone who would have a greater positive impact if that were the case.
I won't use their CL handles here, that's up to them, but those who I'm aware asked a question or related something to the club on the night included (in no particular order) me (Rich Pemberton), Brenda Smith, Nigel Pamment, Steve Clarke, Craig Norris, Craig Parrett, Ian Wallis, John Commerford, Christine Lawrie, Vernon Roper, the inimitable Syd Cheeswright, and club shop employee. I've probably missed a couple out there.
By the way, personally I thought Syd had a point (and I'm hardly one to criticise him for verbosity!)- it was unplanned from our perspective, but he brought it up at a time when operational issues were being discussed as examples of fan disenfranchisement. We did perhaps allow ourselves to get bogged down a little in the detail but he did highlight why the club trying to get everyone's views represented meant - in the event - that no-one really got the representation that was needed.
* Effort was put into the presentation because they were keen to get over positive messages about long time plans but didn't really think about the questions they might be asked. The plan with answering questions was to try to be honest and didn't have any answers prepared.
This is damning isn't it? It tells of a leadership removed from their customers, and one without a narrative. Of course they should have had their messages prepared, with a level of detail that moved supporter understanding forward.
* Felt that a number of the questions were about important issues, but ones that should be dealt with in other forums, especially ones about specific operational problems. Felt this took up too much of the meeting and therefore didn't get to the key issues.
This was inevitable because they didn't anticipate the questions, didn't take them seriously or contextualise them when asked, and didn't have the narrative to address them. For example, the season ticket question was what should the club do? This was a gimme. "We recognise we got it wrong and will take responsibility to make amends so that it doesn't persist as an issue between us all." For example, offer a make-amends to all season ticket holders, perhaps a free 'bring a friend' ticket that would be a gesture of good will, have a face value but cost the club nothing, and benefit all parties if used. Instead they didn't address the question at all, firing it back at me without attempt to answer it before then palming it off to an imaginary forum - it's possible the gap widened as a result of this. It's a lack of empathy in my book, at the heart of the supporters' feelings of disenfranchisement.
* It hadn't occurred to them that the way the meeting was arranged and managed might have a negative effect on how people perceive them. Was a surprise that a meeting billed as a round table between KM and RM and a smallish group of fans, but was actually a panel, with a top table to a bigger audience (including club employees) might be considered in a less than positive way.
Again, this is damning. The biggest issue is a mutual breakdown in trust. Isn't it the most basic requirement therefore, to to do what you say you'll do? This was stressed to KM ahead of the meeting. Instead we have all this head scratching, but it's of their own making.
* On a similar note, it had not occurred to them how important the language used is. That saying 'them' and 'their' to describe fans, instead of talking about 'us' and how 'we' are going to get out of this together, might be considered less than positive was a surprise.
More surprises. 'Us' is a product of a mindset though, and that's why I stressed at the end of the evening that it wasn't up to the "negative" fans to change their mind, or others to bridge the gap, but for the club to move towards the supporters.
* The desire to communicate more with fans and in a better and open way is an honest one and they are looking at how this can be done going forward. They seem very keen on the openness bit and want more filming of meetings. One suggestion is live streaming and taking questions online if it can be done. There is an awareness that there is a long way to go but want to do better.
Dr Covey's 7 habits includes, "seek first to understand, then to be understood". You have to listen if you want to communicate, not least because you have to understand how your messages will be received. If there's a lack of trust, repeating a mantra will not overcome it but entrench it. The key is acting in genuine openness, not filming meetings. The latter is only helpful if you're open in front of the camera.
* They are pleased with the Vaz Te signing and know that the playing squad is one of the major issues with fans. There is also a strong belief that if we start winning more than we lose, much of the dissatisfaction will melt away.
Playing squad will be a perennial issue for fans - it was in the Premiership ("just one or two players..."). The underlying issue is of direction, and whether the scouting network provides the head coach with the right character of player to thrive in the Championship. Personally speaking, I see two remote Belgians controlling it all with an over-reliance on pure data as a big part of the problem - do they really understand what's needed for the Championship? But as ever the club simply doesn't get it - this is not about results, a good run simply papers over the dissatisfaction, which appears again as soon as the run ends.
* They see groups like CAST as important, but think that they are only one voice out of many. They are conscious that the trust do not represent all fans and are actually seen in a negative way by some fans. Want to get broadest range of views possible.
And all fan organisations suffer similarly, but the solution is not to squeeze 15,000 people into a room to talk to them - it's to acknowledge that these organisations are the only place from where consensus can realistically be driven - CAST, Bromley Addicks, East Kent Addicks are the biggest groups and the most able to do that. Our experience in this exercise is that what was coming back to all three of those groups - and the other smaller ones - brought some common themes. That should be invaluable to the club but will be lost in the spread of voices of the multitude.
I don't think she does to be fair. That is just a quote from the meeting, lifted, and twisted to create a nothing article about Gomez. I don't think Katrien has the faintest idea who the writer or the publication is. The sort of dross that we accept as journalism nowadays simply because someone "publishes" it
I don't think she does to be fair. That is just a quote from the meeting, lifted, and twisted to create a nothing article about Gomez. I don't think Katrien has the faintest idea who the writer or the publication is. The sort of dross that we accept as journalism nowadays simply because someone "publishes" it
I don't think she does to be fair. That is just a quote from the meeting, lifted, and twisted to create a nothing article about Gomez. I don't think Katrien has the faintest idea who the writer or the publication is. The sort of dross that we accept as journalism nowadays simply because someone "publishes" it
Thought this might be the case.
Which is why you opened with "off she goes again"....
I don't think she does to be fair. That is just a quote from the meeting, lifted, and twisted to create a nothing article about Gomez. I don't think Katrien has the faintest idea who the writer or the publication is. The sort of dross that we accept as journalism nowadays simply because someone "publishes" it
Thought this might be the case.
Which is why you opened with "off she goes again"....
* The desire to communicate more with fans and in a better and open way is an honest one and they are looking at how this can be done going forward. They seem very keen on the openness bit and want more filming of meetings. One suggestion is live streaming and taking questions online if it can be done. There is an awareness that there is a long way to go but want to do better.
Dr Covey's 7 habits includes, "seek first to understand, then to be understood". You have to listen if you want to communicate, not least because you have to understand how your messages will be received. If there's a lack of trust, repeating a mantra will not overcome it but entrench it. The key is acting in genuine openness, not filming meetings. The latter is only helpful if you're open in front of the camera.
By the way, I'm aware that this is true for CASTrust and other fans' groups too - if we want to be heard, we need to make sure the message is put over in a way that's empathetic to where the club's people are too. It's important to hear the will is there, just I hope the openness to be challenged is too - we didn't really get that from Tuesday.
Not all of us think it's the brightest move to get Roland out. Using his money more wisely than he is would be better.
Sadly, that reads like "He can stay and keep pumping his money only if I'm (we are) allowed to dictate what it's spent on"
I think you have to twist it to read it that way.
One question to illustrate it: if you had £9m to spend on incoming transfers, do you think it could be more wisely spent than on players like Polish Pete or Lepoint?
Fair enough, but let me float this. Dowie and Pardew were allowed to spend a lot of money and I would argue that they wasted a lot of it. With hindsight £1.55m for Izale McCloud was a shocking waste of money, for example. If those two managers, can waste money it does beg the question 'Is it easy to find great players cheaply?' I suspect it is not.
This chap's approach is, for what ever reason, to sign players that might be great but night not, hoping that he unearths a few gems along the way to pay for those that don't work out. The only way to guarantee that all players are great is to sign those that have proved they can do it, and they are very expensive.
I don't disagree that some of the money has been wasted. Some of it hasn't. Up to now there is no evidence, at all, that the set up is able to deliver value on transfers and/or turn an overall profit. All the sales thus far have been players that were here when they arrived. However, as much as I agree with you that Polish Pete and Lepoint have cost money and provided no return I do question if it was easy for someone else to spend that money much more wisely without the benefit of hindsight, which you clearly have now.
Maybe I did use my words to, intentionally, make a point but it still doesn't sit comfortably with me that we are willing to allow anyone to 'invest' money into our club but only if they spend the money in the way that we like. What that leads to, you must understand, is a discussion about, not only what the money is spent on but how much is spent. That £9m could easily have been spent on two or three players then we (whom ever we are) would have wanted a bigger squad. I don't think the signings are all that bad when you take into account the number of players we had to sign. For example, I seriously doubt that anyone could put together a good enough Championship squad for £9m. £29m maybe but not £9m.
I don't think the issue is, so much, what the money is spent on but that fact that he is not spending enough. Pardew spent £12.5m in the summer of 2007 after Dowie had spent £11m the year before. Prices have rocketed since then and we've spent £9m in two years.
I'm not an apologist for RD or KM but based on the money they are going to 'invest' I don't, personally, think we can expect much more in terms of squad strength. So, he has to go or we can't expect much more.
The biggest trick would be finding someone that has £100m that they are desperate to turn into £10m in two years. Until he find him or her we are a little depending on RD and KM.
* Effort was put into the presentation because they were keen to get over positive messages about long time plans but didn't really think about the questions they might be asked. The plan with answering questions was to try to be honest and didn't have any answers prepared.
This is damning isn't it? It tells of a leadership removed from their customers, and one without a narrative. Of course they should have had their messages prepared, with a level of detail that moved supporter understanding forward.
* Felt that a number of the questions were about important issues, but ones that should be dealt with in other forums, especially ones about specific operational problems. Felt this took up too much of the meeting and therefore didn't get to the key issues.
This was inevitable because they didn't anticipate the questions, didn't take them seriously or contextualise them when asked, and didn't have the narrative to address them. For example, the season ticket question was what should the club do? This was a gimme. "We recognise we got it wrong and will take responsibility to make amends so that it doesn't persist as an issue between us all." For example, offer a make-amends to all season ticket holders, perhaps a free 'bring a friend' ticket that would be a gesture of good will, have a face value but cost the club nothing, and benefit all parties if used. Instead they didn't address the question at all, firing it back at me without attempt to answer it before then palming it off to an imaginary forum - it's possible the gap widened as a result of this. It's a lack of empathy in my book, at the heart of the supporters' feelings of disenfranchisement.
* It hadn't occurred to them that the way the meeting was arranged and managed might have a negative effect on how people perceive them. Was a surprise that a meeting billed as a round table between KM and RM and a smallish group of fans, but was actually a panel, with a top table to a bigger audience (including club employees) might be considered in a less than positive way.
Again, this is damning. The biggest issue is a mutual breakdown in trust. Isn't it the most basic requirement therefore, to to do what you say you'll do? This was stressed to KM ahead of the meeting. Instead we have all this head scratching, but it's of their own making.
* On a similar note, it had not occurred to them how important the language used is. That saying 'them' and 'their' to describe fans, instead of talking about 'us' and how 'we' are going to get out of this together, might be considered less than positive was a surprise.
More surprises. 'Us' is a product of a mindset though, and that's why I stressed at the end of the evening that it wasn't up to the "negative" fans to change their mind, or others to bridge the gap, but for the club to move towards the supporters.
* The desire to communicate more with fans and in a better and open way is an honest one and they are looking at how this can be done going forward. They seem very keen on the openness bit and want more filming of meetings. One suggestion is live streaming and taking questions online if it can be done. There is an awareness that there is a long way to go but want to do better.
Dr Covey's 7 habits includes, "seek first to understand, then to be understood". You have to listen if you want to communicate, not least because you have to understand how your messages will be received. If there's a lack of trust, repeating a mantra will not overcome it but entrench it. The key is acting in genuine openness, not filming meetings. The latter is only helpful if you're open in front of the camera.
* They are pleased with the Vaz Te signing and know that the playing squad is one of the major issues with fans. There is also a strong belief that if we start winning more than we lose, much of the dissatisfaction will melt away.
Playing squad will be a perennial issue for fans - it was in the Premiership ("just one or two players..."). The underlying issue is of direction, and whether the scouting network provides the head coach with the right character of player to thrive in the Championship. Personally speaking, I see two remote Belgians controlling it all with an over-reliance on pure data as a big part of the problem - do they really understand what's needed for the Championship? But as ever the club simply doesn't get it - this is not about results, a good run simply papers over the dissatisfaction, which appears again as soon as the run ends.
* They see groups like CAST as important, but think that they are only one voice out of many. They are conscious that the trust do not represent all fans and are actually seen in a negative way by some fans. Want to get broadest range of views possible.
And all fan organisations suffer similarly, but the solution is not to squeeze 15,000 people into a room to talk to them - it's to acknowledge that these organisations are the only place from where consensus can realistically be driven - CAST, Bromley Addicks, East Kent Addicks are the biggest groups and the most able to do that. Our experience in this exercise is that what was coming back to all three of those groups - and the other smaller ones - brought some common themes. That should be invaluable to the club but will be lost in the spread of voices of the multitude.
I don't disagree with any of this.
I think there is some bunker mentality going on within the club. KM and team need to get out of this way of thinking and think about how we all, as a group, can work together. Again, it will all depend upon whether RD wants to play ball or not as we go forward.
Something else that was commented to me was how well organised Charlton fans are. That we are organised not just with a single fans group, but our campaigning is over quite a dispersed range of issues, compared to other clubs. My feeling is that they haven't yet worked out how to manage this.
* Effort was put into the presentation because they were keen to get over positive messages about long time plans but didn't really think about the questions they might be asked. The plan with answering questions was to try to be honest and didn't have any answers prepared.
This is damning isn't it? It tells of a leadership removed from their customers, and one without a narrative. Of course they should have had their messages prepared, with a level of detail that moved supporter understanding forward.
* Felt that a number of the questions were about important issues, but ones that should be dealt with in other forums, especially ones about specific operational problems. Felt this took up too much of the meeting and therefore didn't get to the key issues.
This was inevitable because they didn't anticipate the questions, didn't take them seriously or contextualise them when asked, and didn't have the narrative to address them. For example, the season ticket question was what should the club do? This was a gimme. "We recognise we got it wrong and will take responsibility to make amends so that it doesn't persist as an issue between us all." For example, offer a make-amends to all season ticket holders, perhaps a free 'bring a friend' ticket that would be a gesture of good will, have a face value but cost the club nothing, and benefit all parties if used. Instead they didn't address the question at all, firing it back at me without attempt to answer it before then palming it off to an imaginary forum - it's possible the gap widened as a result of this. It's a lack of empathy in my book, at the heart of the supporters' feelings of disenfranchisement.
* It hadn't occurred to them that the way the meeting was arranged and managed might have a negative effect on how people perceive them. Was a surprise that a meeting billed as a round table between KM and RM and a smallish group of fans, but was actually a panel, with a top table to a bigger audience (including club employees) might be considered in a less than positive way.
Again, this is damning. The biggest issue is a mutual breakdown in trust. Isn't it the most basic requirement therefore, to to do what you say you'll do? This was stressed to KM ahead of the meeting. Instead we have all this head scratching, but it's of their own making.
* On a similar note, it had not occurred to them how important the language used is. That saying 'them' and 'their' to describe fans, instead of talking about 'us' and how 'we' are going to get out of this together, might be considered less than positive was a surprise.
More surprises. 'Us' is a product of a mindset though, and that's why I stressed at the end of the evening that it wasn't up to the "negative" fans to change their mind, or others to bridge the gap, but for the club to move towards the supporters.
* The desire to communicate more with fans and in a better and open way is an honest one and they are looking at how this can be done going forward. They seem very keen on the openness bit and want more filming of meetings. One suggestion is live streaming and taking questions online if it can be done. There is an awareness that there is a long way to go but want to do better.
Dr Covey's 7 habits includes, "seek first to understand, then to be understood". You have to listen if you want to communicate, not least because you have to understand how your messages will be received. If there's a lack of trust, repeating a mantra will not overcome it but entrench it. The key is acting in genuine openness, not filming meetings. The latter is only helpful if you're open in front of the camera.
* They are pleased with the Vaz Te signing and know that the playing squad is one of the major issues with fans. There is also a strong belief that if we start winning more than we lose, much of the dissatisfaction will melt away.
Playing squad will be a perennial issue for fans - it was in the Premiership ("just one or two players..."). The underlying issue is of direction, and whether the scouting network provides the head coach with the right character of player to thrive in the Championship. Personally speaking, I see two remote Belgians controlling it all with an over-reliance on pure data as a big part of the problem - do they really understand what's needed for the Championship? But as ever the club simply doesn't get it - this is not about results, a good run simply papers over the dissatisfaction, which appears again as soon as the run ends.
* They see groups like CAST as important, but think that they are only one voice out of many. They are conscious that the trust do not represent all fans and are actually seen in a negative way by some fans. Want to get broadest range of views possible.
And all fan organisations suffer similarly, but the solution is not to squeeze 15,000 people into a room to talk to them - it's to acknowledge that these organisations are the only place from where consensus can realistically be driven - CAST, Bromley Addicks, East Kent Addicks are the biggest groups and the most able to do that. Our experience in this exercise is that what was coming back to all three of those groups - and the other smaller ones - brought some common themes. That should be invaluable to the club but will be lost in the spread of voices of the multitude.
I don't disagree with any of this.
I think there is some bunker mentality going on within the club. KM and team need to get out of this way of thinking and think about how we all, as a group, can work together. Again, it will all depend upon whether RD wants to play ball or not as we go forward.
Something else that was commented to me was how well organised Charlton fans are. That we are organised not just with a single fans group, but our campaigning is over quite a dispersed range of issues, compared to other clubs. My feeling is that they haven't yet worked out how to manage this.
Years ago there was an HSBC advert that showed some soldiers amidst a group of angry people. The situation was calmed by the simple act of the soldiers removing their sunglasses and allowing the people to see into their eyes.
I feel this is the situation the club's management find themselves in, wondering why no-one is hearing them. My message to them is simple: understand the sensitivities in the culture to which they want to speak, and take off the sunglasses.
Having now seen the video of the meeting and read the various comments, I have just a few observations 1 the presentation was poor and really failed to acknowledge the errors that have been made. The boast of spending £9 million and playing academy players is really an admission of failure 2 they were not questioned vigorously enough on the managerial situation,it is not acceptable to bring in a third tier Belgian manager on any sort of basis.Blackburn sacked Bowyer after we sacked Luzon and have now appointed an experienced manager who will be bringing in his own team ,we could have done the same by now, why have we not done so? 3 Communications under this regime have been appalling and that is not the fault of the owner, it is down to the Chief Executive who makes a few grand gestures but the nitty gritty of running a business is totally beyond her and she really needs to be replaced immediately.
Charlton supporters are generally pretty tolerant, we are used to second tier football, what we want to see is engagement with the supporters and some signs of progress, in short a well run business. Give us some hope of progress and we will be on your side, carry on as you are and even the most diehard of us won't be there any more.
I'm not an apologist for RD or KM but based on the money they are going to 'invest' I don't, personally, think we can expect much more in terms of squad strength. So, he has to go or we can't expect much more.
Agree, and RD didn't "invest" £9m as it was partially covered by transfer fees received, so we should expect much less.
Why is the club happy to disclose how much was spent on new players but not how much was received for player sales? The word "spent" could mean gross spend or net spend, KM looked a bit sheepish having failed to leave us with the impression it was the gross spend. The first lesson in communication is that providing facts is not the same as providing information.
I haven't heard anything from the meeting to suggest that anything will change from when KM said "M Duchatelet will do things his way and the fans have to understand that".
I don't think she does to be fair. That is just a quote from the meeting, lifted, and twisted to create a nothing article about Gomez. I don't think Katrien has the faintest idea who the writer or the publication is. The sort of dross that we accept as journalism nowadays simply because someone "publishes" it
Agreed and I don't think you can criticise KM for this transfer.
Comments
Reads to me like: "What a shame that we have an owner who is prepared to invest in our club but does it so wastefully and inadvisedly"
One question to illustrate it: if you had £9m to spend on incoming transfers, do you think it could be more wisely spent than on players like Polish Pete or Lepoint?
I don't have any issue with accepting there is good will but the naivety is breathtaking - and when people are trying to help you, bloody well listen.
The club needs to recognise that it is unrealistic and divisive to try to hear every single view from every single fan. Ultimately that is a plan to do nothing, because you can always find someone who agrees with you even if the groundswell is the opposite. This was the case in point with the club shop employee's contribution.
CASTrust is not the answer to every question but what we did do successfully I believe is bring all the fans reps together to present a consensus of the views from supporters represented, and it was a collaborative effort not seen so much these days. This, I believe, is a lesson for club and fans alike.
The initiative being under the remit of club development, under Lisa Squires i know rik of old began trying to meet with her. Its something we had been pushing for since the first time we full began to fully engage with the club under Bradshaw.
Altho that man had his detractors he did see the value of a joint statement and collaborative approach. We began in ernest with Fill the Valley a leaflet campaign promoting football for a fiver, and also dubbed Knock up your neighbours, we later looked at the possibility of marketing a whole block. It wasnt quite the finished article but it was the beginnings of something.
We wanted to formalise the group with a small working group and larger focus group. things got derailed as the club began to focus on being sold and then taken over, then kensells season ticket debacle pretty much ignored the suggestions he received, and that was that.
so i personally wouldn't watch it unless you have plenty of time on your hands or you're a bit sick and like to feel awkward on occasion
That said we have to acknowledge that the club made the evening what it was, not the fans. I cannot for the life of me imagine why the club thought sticking JJ on the panel would help the conversation along. The issue ahead of the meeting was one of trust, and I personally feel the club acted in bad faith on the night in various ways - even if they did so with the best intentions, they should have done what they said they would do and been open to an outcome that would please both sides.
It's a thank less task but I'm truly grateful to the cool heads Rikofold and co amongst our support who have made me think a bit more about my own take on things which previously was get em out no matter what but that's not a realistic approach
Although I'd still like em out !!
I won't use their CL handles here, that's up to them, but those who I'm aware asked a question or related something to the club on the night included (in no particular order) me (Rich Pemberton), Brenda Smith, Nigel Pamment, Steve Clarke, Craig Norris, Craig Parrett, Ian Wallis, John Commerford, Christine Lawrie, Vernon Roper, the inimitable Syd Cheeswright, and club shop employee. I've probably missed a couple out there.
By the way, personally I thought Syd had a point (and I'm hardly one to criticise him for verbosity!)- it was unplanned from our perspective, but he brought it up at a time when operational issues were being discussed as examples of fan disenfranchisement. We did perhaps allow ourselves to get bogged down a little in the detail but he did highlight why the club trying to get everyone's views represented meant - in the event - that no-one really got the representation that was needed.
This chap's approach is, for what ever reason, to sign players that might be great but night not, hoping that he unearths a few gems along the way to pay for those that don't work out. The only way to guarantee that all players are great is to sign those that have proved they can do it, and they are very expensive.
I don't disagree that some of the money has been wasted. Some of it hasn't. Up to now there is no evidence, at all, that the set up is able to deliver value on transfers and/or turn an overall profit. All the sales thus far have been players that were here when they arrived. However, as much as I agree with you that Polish Pete and Lepoint have cost money and provided no return I do question if it was easy for someone else to spend that money much more wisely without the benefit of hindsight, which you clearly have now.
Maybe I did use my words to, intentionally, make a point but it still doesn't sit comfortably with me that we are willing to allow anyone to 'invest' money into our club but only if they spend the money in the way that we like. What that leads to, you must understand, is a discussion about, not only what the money is spent on but how much is spent. That £9m could easily have been spent on two or three players then we (whom ever we are) would have wanted a bigger squad. I don't think the signings are all that bad when you take into account the number of players we had to sign. For example, I seriously doubt that anyone could put together a good enough Championship squad for £9m. £29m maybe but not £9m.
I don't think the issue is, so much, what the money is spent on but that fact that he is not spending enough. Pardew spent £12.5m in the summer of 2007 after Dowie had spent £11m the year before. Prices have rocketed since then and we've spent £9m in two years.
I'm not an apologist for RD or KM but based on the money they are going to 'invest' I don't, personally, think we can expect much more in terms of squad strength. So, he has to go or we can't expect much more.
The biggest trick would be finding someone that has £100m that they are desperate to turn into £10m in two years. Until he find him or her we are a little depending on RD and KM.
I think there is some bunker mentality going on within the club. KM and team need to get out of this way of thinking and think about how we all, as a group, can work together. Again, it will all depend upon whether RD wants to play ball or not as we go forward.
Something else that was commented to me was how well organised Charlton fans are. That we are organised not just with a single fans group, but our campaigning is over quite a dispersed range of issues, compared to other clubs. My feeling is that they haven't yet worked out how to manage this.
I feel this is the situation the club's management find themselves in, wondering why no-one is hearing them. My message to them is simple: understand the sensitivities in the culture to which they want to speak, and take off the sunglasses.
1 the presentation was poor and really failed to acknowledge the errors that have been made. The boast of spending £9 million and playing academy players is really an admission of failure
2 they were not questioned vigorously enough on the managerial situation,it is not acceptable to bring in a third tier Belgian manager on any sort of basis.Blackburn sacked Bowyer after we sacked Luzon and have now appointed an experienced manager who will be bringing in his own team ,we could have done the same by now, why have we not done so?
3 Communications under this regime have been appalling and that is not the fault of the owner, it is down to the Chief Executive who makes a few grand gestures but the nitty gritty of running a business is totally beyond her and she really needs to be replaced immediately.
Charlton supporters are generally pretty tolerant, we are used to second tier football, what we want to see is engagement with the supporters and some signs of progress, in short a well run business. Give us some hope of progress and we will be on your side, carry on as you are and even the most diehard of us won't be there any more.
Why is the club happy to disclose how much was spent on new players but not how much was received for player sales? The word "spent" could mean gross spend or net spend, KM looked a bit sheepish having failed to leave us with the impression it was the gross spend. The first lesson in communication is that providing facts is not the same as providing information.
http://www.cafc.co.uk/documents/fans-forum-minutes-15-october83-2803194.pdf