Completely opposite to what we were orginally lead to believe. Its made us all look a little stupid fpr our reactions.
It only makes you look stupid if you comment on an incident based on rumour
Problem is the communication from the Club is so bad, all we seem to be getting is 'rumours'.
Let's see if things improve with the new Comms Manager.
The club couldn't or wouldn't comment until Gwen and her son had been in to see the CCTV, perfectly reasonable. No rumours came from the club, but people on here let their hatred of the current owners cloud their judgement and had made up their own minds, all the rumours came from here.
That's just further annoyed me, that's the second tweet that's been posted on this thread by Mick. I defended the last one, but this one just paints a picture of him being a bell-end - what good is posting that going to do?
It's his personal account, and he has a disclaimer about the views being his. Yet he still posts in a provocative way that only acts to put fuel on the fire. Very poor judgement, and he should be rising above it.
For clarity, such disclaimers are meaningless. It's like people thinking if you preface everything with "allegedly" then you can't be used. Someone posting about their employers and their job, when people clearly know who they work for, gives the post more profile than it otherwise would have and can be interpreted as a semi-official view. Few companies would sit back and smile if the post was abusive to them, shrugging @well, he put up a disclaimer' so equally people on social media have to be very careful mixing their personal life with their job.
That's just further annoyed me, that's the second tweet that's been posted on this thread by Mick. I defended the last one, but this one just paints a picture of him being a bell-end - what good is posting that going to do?
It's his personal account, and he has a disclaimer about the views being his. Yet he still posts in a provocative way that only acts to put fuel on the fire. Very poor judgement, and he should be rising above it.
Just one of Miere's bully boys, who like her get upset when we misunderstand how great Roland us.
Just one of Miere's bully boys, who like her get upset when we misunderstand how great Roland us.
Not everyone who fails to buy into the protests is the enemy. People who have done a hell of a lot for the club are entitled to other views, although, as with Sue Parkes, would advise keeping some of those views private. For clarity, Richard Murray used up all his goodwill some time back and so is now the enemy!
Just one of Miere's bully boys, who like her get upset when we misunderstand how great Roland us.
Not everyone who fails to buy into the protests is the enemy. People who have done a hell of a lot for the club are entitled to other views, although, as with Sue Parkes, would advise keeping some of those views private. For clarity, Richard Murray used up all his goodwill some time back and so is now the enemy!
The tone and emotive language used in Gwen's post on here suggested that the stewards had acted aggressively and without due care. Unsurprisingly that prompted many of us to make a judgment that was based upon Gwen's account. Why would she not present an accurate description so publicly?
Therefore either her account was deliberately dishonest or she misrepresented the sequence of events in order to garner some support and sympathy.
Or there's another reason why such a different story has now come out.
In the heat of the moment people will have different views on a confrontation. If I had a banner and someone came to ask to have it or for me to remove it, I would probably use some intemperate language. If all I said was 'eff off jobsworth I'm protesting here it's not doing any harm what you gonna do anyway?' Note I made this up these words, then I'd expect mr jobsworth having been asked to remove the banner to come back.
If he then rocked up with a bunch of mates to try and remove me from the stadium, I might have got a bit more upset and if anyone had friend to lay hands on me I might have tried to stop them touching me. If in doing that my mum had got struck in the face this might make me even more upset. If I'd had a few pints by this stage I may be really very upset indeed.
If I were the initial steward I'm not sure I would have been super happy about going and asking for the banner to be taken down. I don't know why He was asked to do so and that is the most telling question.
However, having been asked to see it was taken down, I got verbals I'd go and get some support. If I was part of the supporting group, heroes to a man I'm sure, and I wouldn't have tried to touch anyone. If one of us had to put a hand on someone's shoulder to ask them to leave, I'd expect them to resist, this may lead to being a bit more responsive than in a no pressure situation. If anyone got caught by mistake, then apologies all round.
if I were then the club, I would have Gwen and her son in, give them their season tickets back + more (I hope they got extras) and sorry it worked out like that but you can't win here the way the rules are stacked against you and we can keep your season ticket(s) no problem and other such things or worse.
The main issue for me was who made the decision to have the banner taken down? That decision created an easily avoidable flashpoint that may encourage more banners in the future. Given that there were protests before, during and after the game anyway, all a bit of an own goal.
Poor @rikofold must be exhausted, supporters trust, valley gold and now spokesman for the Gower family !
Not sure any of this paints any one in a good light, I don't think Gwen's original statement has been "misinterpreted" by supported as such, she clearly intimated that the steward(s) were the aggressor and they'd been dealt with harshly. Taking those words at face value many fans were upset and some got carried away. Now the club feel vindicated because the story has been clarified by Gwen there's a senior member of staff looking to play "I told you so" with some supporters on Twitter.
After taking a lot of abuse on twitter, here and elsewhere I think Mick was entitled to give a bit back.
The only tweet that went too far IMHO was the one about some people thinking the banner was offensive and even there he doesn't say that is his view.
I'm biased as I've known Mick for a long time but I know he is Charlton through and through, loves the club and does whatever he can to be reasonable with fans when they are reasonable with him. HE IS NOT OUR ENEMY.
Of course he isn't, but he probably should think before tweeting or he will become an enemy to sections of the fan base.
I said somewhere before that you can't control a crowd that is angry. The same applies here, if someone is stupid enough to offer up fuel to the fire then don't be surprised if its used. That's why most employers expect their employees to not express any opinions about their job unless it's through official channels and approved by the organisation.
Poor @rikofold must be exhausted, supporters trust, valley gold and now spokesman for the Gower family !
Not sure any of this paints any one in a good light, I don't think Gwen's original statement has been "misinterpreted" by supported as such, she clearly intimated that the steward(s) were the aggressor and they'd been dealt with harshly. Taking those words at face value many fans were upset and some got carried away. Now the club feel vindicated because the story has been clarified by Gwen there's a senior member of staff looking to play "I told you so" with some supporters on Twitter.
After taking a lot of abuse on twitter, here and elsewhere I think Mick was entitled to give a bit back.
The only tweet that went too far IMHO was the one about some people thinking the banner was offensive and even there he doesn't say that is his view.
I'm biased as I've known Mick for a long time but I know he is Charlton through and through, loves the club and does whatever he can to be reasonable with fans when they are reasonable with him. HE IS NOT OUR ENEMY.
Of course he isn't, but he probably should think before tweeting or he will become an enemy to sections of the fan base.
Prehaps the one who were having a go at Mick should also think before making comments as well.......
The club never admit they were wrong, these meetings are always held & the outcome is always the club acted properly & the customer involved made a mistake - this incident is a massive U-Turn, not sure how Gwen & her Son could get something totally wrong - we all make mistakes with a story in the heat of the moment but to get the context totally wrong, I don't think so.
And why couldn't Gwen come on here and post that message???
Also interesting to see that the those with something to lose or with contacts inside the club are backing the club on this matter
Gwen asked me to post it. She's not been happy with the way some fans have reacted.
Personally I'm not backing the club, I'm backing the truth. I've seen the cctv and heard what both parties had to say. As an independent I found myself not agreeing with everything everyone had to say and not all the cctv is conclusive, but the important things were agreed and that's why Gwen's been big enough to come out and state the facts. You can take it or leave it, but there's no agenda.
Mick's tweets were personal responses to someone being aggressive towards him, and are out of context here. I like to think of myself as fair, and frankly I don't think it's fair he gets called out for a reaction when someone else is stepping over the line.
People are using the protesting mood as an excuse for bad behaviour and it isn't an excuse. Gwen didn't have to say anything, so let's respect that she did and move on.
That's just further annoyed me, that's the second tweet that's been posted on this thread by Mick. I defended the last one, but this one just paints a picture of him being a bell-end - what good is posting that going to do?
It's his personal account, and he has a disclaimer about the views being his. Yet he still posts in a provocative way that only acts to put fuel on the fire. Very poor judgement, and he should be rising above it.
Just one of Miere's bully boys, who like her get upset when we misunderstand how great Roland us.
So they completely exaggerated/made up bits of what happened, and in fact it was the son being rude to the steward that was the worst part of the whole thing.
Classy.
Oh come on, don't be daft. Do a bit of reading between the lines here.
Why? A complete U turn on what we were lead to believe.
The steward didn't aggressively throw anyone out. The steward didn't punch a lady in the head. The bloke in question, Josh, abused the steward.
If the stewards are in the wrong I would be the first to encourage going after them for whatever they have done. But to simply make stuff up to make them sound bad is pretty low.
Anyway, it's happened, everyone's apologised. Moving on.
1) Gwen's initial description gave the impression he was taken out mob-handed, which appears not to have been the case from the statement. However, if the whole process was as calm and controlled as they seem to be making out, how did the steward manage to whackknock her in the face? And at least one person here says they saw the steward grab Josh, not just place an arm on his shoulder.
2) Gwen never said she was punched in the face, she said she was hit in the face. The statement casts it as being knocked in the face, but that isn't inconsistent with what she said, just sounds less dramatic.
3) Gwen said Josh called the steward a jobsworth, which might be considered being verbally abusive, so again, not inconsistent with the statement but hardly the worst thing in the world.
This has all the hallmarks of "sign this interpretation of events that stops the club looking bad, and you can have your season ticket back". Hence the no further comment from Gwen and Josh.
Definite cover up. Football clubs love pulling up all the ground regulations and twisting things to make you look 100% in the wrong. After 10 minutes you think you're the devil and owe them an apology and grovel for your ST as they start dropping hints about banning you for the rest of the season.
So you've seen the CCTV of the incident as well?
Only the second part of the clip that was on this thread. Couple that with the original message and now the complete U-turn, you can read between the lines.
When someone is in the wrong and the stewards move in, generally the crowd let them do their job. Particularly at Charlton, who aren't known for a volatile response to stewards moving in among them. That clip showed the surrounding crowd very angry and pissed off. Makes you wonder there was a little more fuel to the fire for that reaction. (albeit I know the atmosphere down there is teetering on the edge of producing the biggest riots football has seen since we last played up....which could be Oxford away tonight)
So they completely exaggerated/made up bits of what happened, and in fact it was the son being rude to the steward that was the worst part of the whole thing.
Classy.
Oh come on, don't be daft. Do a bit of reading between the lines here.
Why? A complete U turn on what we were lead to believe.
The steward didn't aggressively throw anyone out. The steward didn't punch a lady in the head. The bloke in question, Josh, abused the steward.
If the stewards are in the wrong I would be the first to encourage going after them for whatever they have done. But to simply make stuff up to make them sound bad is pretty low.
Anyway, it's happened, everyone's apologised. Moving on.
1) Gwen's initial description gave the impression he was taken out mob-handed, which appears not to have been the case from the statement. However, if the whole process was as calm and controlled as they seem to be making out, how did the steward manage to whackknock her in the face? And at least one person here says they saw the steward grab Josh, not just place an arm on his shoulder.
2) Gwen never said she was punched in the face, she said she was hit in the face. The statement casts it as being knocked in the face, but that isn't inconsistent with what she said, just sounds less dramatic.
3) Gwen said Josh called the steward a jobsworth, which might be considered being verbally abusive, so again, not inconsistent with the statement but hardly the worst thing in the world.
This has all the hallmarks of "sign this interpretation of events that stops the club looking bad, and you can have your season ticket back". Hence the no further comment from Gwen and Josh.
Definite cover up. Football clubs love pulling up all the ground regulations and twisting things to make you look 100% in the wrong. After 10 minutes you think you're the devil and owe them an apology and grovel for your ST as they start dropping hints about banning you for the rest of the season.
So you've seen the CCTV of the incident as well?
Only the second part of the clip that was on this thread. Couple that with the original message and now the complete U-turn, you can read between the lines.
When someone is in the wrong and the stewards move in, generally the crowd let them do their job. Particularly at Charlton, who aren't known for a volatile response to stewards moving in among them. That clip showed the surrounding crowd very angry and pissed off. Makes you wonder there was a little more fuel to the fire for that reaction. (albeit I know the atmosphere down there is teetering on the edge of producing the biggest riots football has seen since we last played up....which could be Oxford away tonight)
I think at other times or with a different message no-one would have batted an eyelid. That message being taken down, with the crowd already angry, created a much bigger story than ever really existed. The CCTV is much clearer than the clip shown here, incidentally.
The club never admit they were wrong, these meetings are always held & the outcome is always the club acted properly & the customer involved made a mistake - this incident is a massive U-Turn, not sure how Gwen & her Son could get something totally wrong - we all make mistakes with a story in the heat of the moment but to get the context totally wrong, I don't think so.
And why couldn't Gwen come on here and post that message???
Also interesting to see that the those with something to lose or with contacts inside the club are backing the club on this matter
I have no contacts at the club but Gwens second update via Rikofold ties in with exactly what I witnessed from a few rows away.
I know people like Mick on here but that tweet just shows the bloke is a complete twat, keep getting into bed with the enemy and pretend he is one of us.
I know people like Mick on here but that tweet just shows the bloke is a complete twat, keep getting into bed with the enemy and pretend he is one of us.
I know people like Mick on here but that tweet just shows the bloke is a complete twat, keep getting into bed with the enemy and pretend he is one of us.
No need for such a response from a club employee.
This thread appears to be turning around to show incorrect facts and misrepresentation, your summery of Mick could not be more "incorrect or misrepresented" if you tried.
Seems to me the matter is done and dusted. A lot said on both sides, some emerging with red faces, but it's over and it is in nobody's interests to keep this discussion going. We should all pull together again, as we have recently, to concentrate our energies on getting Meire and Duchatalet out of our club as soon as we can.
So Mick is allowed to tweet what he wants but Sue Parkes can't write on FB, despite both being 'proper Charlton'. Seems like double standards depending on who you're mates with.
So Mick is allowed to tweet what he wants but Sue Parkes can't write on FB, despite both being 'proper Charlton'. Seems like double standards depending on who you're mates with.
Indeed. And only one of them works for the Club, despite what people think Sue doesn't get told much (any) more than we do before an official release.
Anyway, it's up to him what he tweets, but hitting out at fans would be a sackable offence in a lot of other jobs, even if it's his personal account.
So Mick is allowed to tweet what he wants but Sue Parkes can't write on FB, despite both being 'proper Charlton'. Seems like double standards depending on who you're mates with.
Only I never said Sue Parkes wasn't allowed to write on Facebook.
Seems the double standard here is Mick can be abused and people can claim that something "outrageous" happened but when that is proved to be false and accepted as such by the persons involved there is no apology, just more abuse.
I've never commented on what the wife of an employee posts on Facebook.
I'm standing up for Mick, because not only did he not take anything at face value, he examined the evidence, met with the aggrieved and made a decisive decision, which was 100 per cent backed up by the original complainant.
Yet some people still want to have a go at Mick because the regime sign off his pay cheque once a month.
I can promise you one thing, if the steward/stewards had done anything wrong, he would have published an apology, made things right with the complainants and the stewards would not have worked at The Valley again.
Comments
Therefore either her account was deliberately dishonest or she misrepresented the sequence of events in order to garner some support and sympathy.
Or there's another reason why such a different story has now come out.
If he then rocked up with a bunch of mates to try and remove me from the stadium, I might have got a bit more upset and if anyone had friend to lay hands on me I might have tried to stop them touching me. If in doing that my mum had got struck in the face this might make me even more upset. If I'd had a few pints by this stage I may be really very upset indeed.
If I were the initial steward I'm not sure I would have been super happy about going and asking for the banner to be taken down. I don't know why He was asked to do so and that is the most telling question.
However, having been asked to see it was taken down, I got verbals I'd go and get some support. If I was part of the supporting group, heroes to a man I'm sure, and I wouldn't have tried to touch anyone. If one of us had to put a hand on someone's shoulder to ask them to leave, I'd expect them to resist, this may lead to being a bit more responsive than in a no pressure situation. If anyone got caught by mistake, then apologies all round.
if I were then the club, I would have Gwen and her son in, give them their season tickets back + more (I hope they got extras) and sorry it worked out like that but you can't win here the way the rules are stacked against you and we can keep your season ticket(s) no problem and other such things or worse.
The main issue for me was who made the decision to have the banner taken down? That decision created an easily avoidable flashpoint that may encourage more banners in the future. Given that there were protests before, during and after the game anyway, all a bit of an own goal.
That's why most employers expect their employees to not express any opinions about their job unless it's through official channels and approved by the organisation.
When someone is in the wrong and the stewards move in, generally the crowd let them do their job. Particularly at Charlton, who aren't known for a volatile response to stewards moving in among them. That clip showed the surrounding crowd very angry and pissed off. Makes you wonder there was a little more fuel to the fire for that reaction. (albeit I know the atmosphere down there is teetering on the edge of producing the biggest riots football has seen since we last played up....which could be Oxford away tonight)
I have no contacts at the club but Gwens second update via Rikofold ties in with exactly what I witnessed from a few rows away.
No need for such a response from a club employee.
Anyway, it's up to him what he tweets, but hitting out at fans would be a sackable offence in a lot of other jobs, even if it's his personal account.
Seems the double standard here is Mick can be abused and people can claim that something "outrageous" happened but when that is proved to be false and accepted as such by the persons involved there is no apology, just more abuse.
I'm standing up for Mick, because not only did he not take anything at face value, he examined the evidence, met with the aggrieved and made a decisive decision, which was 100 per cent backed up by the original complainant.
Yet some people still want to have a go at Mick because the regime sign off his pay cheque once a month.
I can promise you one thing, if the steward/stewards had done anything wrong, he would have published an apology, made things right with the complainants and the stewards would not have worked at The Valley again.