RD: “Me and a few other people. Few people see things clearly. Many people think tomorrow will be just like yesterday. It's normal that they think like that, but in practice it is not like that. I belong to the small group of people who think tomorrow will be different from today."
More correct to say in the case of Charlton that only you can't see what is blindingly obvious to the vast majority of others.
Your CEO and supporting appointees (Keohane for one) are not competent. Your transfer policies have failed, and the atmosphere of the club and large proportions of the support have been destroyed during your ownership.
You have failed, your vision has failed and you should sell and, if necessary start again elsewhere in England probably in Division 1.
at a recent match I chatted to one of our supporters who I hadn't met for some time. He attends a lot of home and away games and has supported the team for many years. He pointed to my black and white scarf saying that he did not agree with it and having been a regular on CL now rarely visits. He does not agree with the protests as he sees no alternative to RD and from what he said does not think that the Varney alternative is feasible. He does not like some of the protests with the obscene chants nor the whistleblowing during the Middlesbro' match.
I am not saying that he is right but he has a point of view which I expect is shared by more than 2% of our fans and they should not be ignored. CARD need to find a way of persuading these fans and need to ensure that the protests do not further antagonise them.
How can anybody think that Duchatelet is the only option, it sounds like the fella is supportive of the buggers.
At this stage of the game, people must surely realise that things are a mess.
Sorry, but Duchatelet is up there with David Icke. He'll be wearing a pink shell suit next.
David Icke is about to do a world tour infront of hundreds of thousands of people live.
The difference is when he talks people listen. Roland however no one cares what he says
Also most of what Icke says is true and has come true, time and time he has been proven to be correct. Duchatelet however is always wrong!!!
I also believe we are ruled by lizards so there ya go
Lol away
Do you think he's interested in buying a football club...? I've spent a decent amount of time on the Isle of Wight, and it's only a ~3 hour journey.
I'm at a point now where I hope we either end up with sensible owners, or we go completely the other way toward brilliant madness. Say what you will, but it would be nothing if not fun (imagine the fancy dress days we could do!!!!)
How can anybody think that Duchatelet is the only option, it sounds like the fella is supportive of the buggers.
At this stage of the game, people must surely realise that things are a mess.
So at the risk of turning LL's mate into the new Spurs cab driver archetype, I can somewhat understand why someone would feel that way. We've gone through, what is it, four different ownership set-ups if 7-8 years (maths and memory is fuzzy for me)? Our current owner has come in and taken on a debt that has accrued over that time, so I can think how just that fact alone, that stability, could be appealing. I also think it's understandable that, given our debt, belts would need to be tightened.
I'd like to ask first and foremost that you don't shoot the messenger, as I'm playing devil's advocate here. Also, some of the above things, in theory, I agree with. Having an owner who can handle our existing debt and operating costs is good, of course the problem is having one who does that anticipating he can turn things around and actually makes things worse is what we have, and is bad.
Big shout. There's a difference between running a network of second and third tier football clubs poorly and being bad at PR and believing there is an extra terrestrial/sub-terrestrial alien race of lizard humanoids living below us battling against 11 other alienoid races for control of the earth as part of an attempt to conquer the galaxy...or something.
at a recent match I chatted to one of our supporters who I hadn't met for some time. He attends a lot of home and away games and has supported the team for many years. He pointed to my black and white scarf saying that he did not agree with it and having been a regular on CL now rarely visits. He does not agree with the protests as he sees no alternative to RD and from what he said does not think that the Varney alternative is feasible. He does not like some of the protests with the obscene chants nor the whistleblowing during the Middlesbro' match.
I am not saying that he is right but he has a point of view which I expect is shared by more than 2% of our fans and they should not be ignored. CARD need to find a way of persuading these fans and need to ensure that the protests do not further antagonise them.
How can anybody think that Duchatelet is the only option, it sounds like the fella is supportive of the buggers.
At this stage of the game, people must surely realise that things are a mess.
Supporters like that seem to have a view of the club that's akin to what you think might happen to someone on Eastenders or Home & Away. They haven't scratched beneath the surface of a situation that, to them, is little more than a subject worthy of some discussion, but isn't the be-all and end-all of their lives.
You only have to look at the thread about our Staprix debt to realise, the sky is falling.
But then again, the oceans will be almost entirely devoid of fish by 2048, but not many of us are doing anything about that, so who are we to judge?
The similarity between Duchatelet and Icke though is startling, they are both visionaries. They both can see things that only a few people can see. They both believe only a few special people, if that, will escape the Earth's inevitable demise in several billion years (well done guys, pick up a silver star on the way out of the GCSE physics classroom)
They also believe the world is run against them by evil (or possibly more stupid) people with agenda which are not theirs (who doesn't believe that?).
Duchatelet does not have, as far as I am aware a penchant for turquoise and not has he played in goal for Coventry. They both have had similar and awful hairstyles though.
I understand David Icke has managed to get a cult off the ground and is considered a motivational speaker.
Unfortunately here there is a disparity as Roland has managed to employ a bunch of c__ts and every communication is more demotivatational than the last.
David Icke beats Roland Duchatelet in minor Celebrity Death Match with a triple back flip over the ring, ripping off Duchatelet's head with a leg grip to reveal, to Icke's disappointment, the normal bodily fluids of someone who has had their head ripped off, and no actual lizard inside at all. Icke claims it was all metaphorical.
How can anybody think that Duchatelet is the only option, it sounds like the fella is supportive of the buggers.
At this stage of the game, people must surely realise that things are a mess.
So at the risk of turning LL's mate into the new Spurs cab driver archetype, I can somewhat understand why someone would feel that way. We've gone through, what is it, four different ownership set-ups if 7-8 years (maths and memory is fuzzy for me)? Our current owner has come in and taken on a debt that has accrued over that time, so I can think how just that fact alone, that stability, could be appealing. I also think it's understandable that, given our debt, belts would need to be tightened.
I'd like to ask first and foremost that you don't shoot the messenger, as I'm playing devil's advocate here. Also, some of the above things, in theory, I agree with. Having an owner who can handle our existing debt and operating costs is good, of course the problem is having one who does that anticipating he can turn things around and actually makes things worse is what we have, and is bad.
Other than the £7m ex-director debt, which is contingent, and the last of the north stand mortgage, it is not true that RD has taken on debt left by previous administrations. He managed the transaction so that the money he had to pay to acquire the assets was left on the books as debt, which is not the same thing. The vast majority of the £38m owed to Staprix is debt he has created.
How can anybody think that Duchatelet is the only option, it sounds like the fella is supportive of the buggers.
At this stage of the game, people must surely realise that things are a mess.
So at the risk of turning LL's mate into the new Spurs cab driver archetype, I can somewhat understand why someone would feel that way. We've gone through, what is it, four different ownership set-ups if 7-8 years (maths and memory is fuzzy for me)? Our current owner has come in and taken on a debt that has accrued over that time, so I can think how just that fact alone, that stability, could be appealing. I also think it's understandable that, given our debt, belts would need to be tightened.
I'd like to ask first and foremost that you don't shoot the messenger, as I'm playing devil's advocate here. Also, some of the above things, in theory, I agree with. Having an owner who can handle our existing debt and operating costs is good, of course the problem is having one who does that anticipating he can turn things around and actually makes things worse is what we have, and is bad.
Other than the £7m ex-director debt, which is contingent, and the last of the north stand mortgage, it is not true that RD has taken on debt left by previous administrations. He managed the transaction so that the money he had to pay to acquire the assets was left on the books as debt, which is not the same thing. The vast majority of the £38m owed to Staprix is debt he has created.
How can anybody think that Duchatelet is the only option, it sounds like the fella is supportive of the buggers.
At this stage of the game, people must surely realise that things are a mess.
So at the risk of turning LL's mate into the new Spurs cab driver archetype, I can somewhat understand why someone would feel that way. We've gone through, what is it, four different ownership set-ups if 7-8 years (maths and memory is fuzzy for me)? Our current owner has come in and taken on a debt that has accrued over that time, so I can think how just that fact alone, that stability, could be appealing. I also think it's understandable that, given our debt, belts would need to be tightened.
I'd like to ask first and foremost that you don't shoot the messenger, as I'm playing devil's advocate here. Also, some of the above things, in theory, I agree with. Having an owner who can handle our existing debt and operating costs is good, of course the problem is having one who does that anticipating he can turn things around and actually makes things worse is what we have, and is bad.
Other than the £7m ex-director debt, which is contingent, and the last of the north stand mortgage, it is not true that RD has taken on debt left by previous administrations. He managed the transaction so that the money he had to pay to acquire the assets was left on the books as debt, which is not the same thing. The vast majority of the £38m owed to Staprix is debt he has created.
Simonmatthews said One possibility - theoretical at this stage - not discussed is what might happen in the event of a Brexit. As a committed - like most Belgians - EU supporter would Roland sell up? Or would he keep us, but give up on further investment, and concentrate on Sint Truiden, Ujpest and Alcorcon? (Leaving us as a weak League One, going on League Two side?)
If he might leave if we leave the EU I know which way I'm voting now
at a recent match I chatted to one of our supporters who I hadn't met for some time. He attends a lot of home and away games and has supported the team for many years. He pointed to my black and white scarf saying that he did not agree with it and having been a regular on CL now rarely visits. He does not agree with the protests as he sees no alternative to RD and from what he said does not think that the Varney alternative is feasible. He does not like some of the protests with the obscene chants nor the whistleblowing during the Middlesbro' match.
I am not saying that he is right but he has a point of view which I expect is shared by more than 2% of our fans and they should not be ignored. CARD need to find a way of persuading these fans and need to ensure that the protests do not further antagonise them.
Did he have any evidence on which to base this assumption? How on earth does he know what the "Varney alternative" is - the club certainly don't know, as they wouldn't even f***ing talk to him. Could you ask him the question on my (our) behalf next time you see him LL, I would genuinely be interested to hear what he had to say.
The "no other option" acceptance of Duchatelet (RD) ignores one simple principle. The consequences of doing nothing.
Our team has competed at the highest levels of the game. Until Jan 3, 2014 the club had operated for over 100yrs in the pursuit of being a successful football team in attaining the highest possible status.
From Jan 4, 2014 it is no longer the aim. This regime does not operate to the same values.
The sporting goal of many decades has gone.
I acknowledge the social aspects to which some are determinedly attached but the club experience they have long enjoyed/ endured will, under this regime, be there in name alone.
M. Gliksten & Huyler belong to a different time. For MG it was a family duty. It was not his passion but he often picked up the annual "tab". With player sales some funds were invariably reinvested in the team. The sale to Huyler was based on his dream to restore former glories. Let down by a few people he lost a fortune in funding the club until an 11th hour rescue.
No matter their failings their focus was for the club to progress on the field of play.
Condemnation of this regime comes precisely because of their perversion of this "raison d'etre".
To argue if results were better is facile. They are not. With poor results people will search for answers.
It is the answers which present the problem.
This regime has imposed a different value set which does not pursue sporting excellence but a financial business model. It is the latter which takes and will always take precedence. It sets the agenda and framework for every decision.
On every decision point the focus is not on a basis of what is good for the first team, but what is good for the balance sheet. They have removed the very ingredient needed to give their strategy an outside chance of working - a strong, balanced and experienced player framework competing successfully.
The implementation of their "vision" has been so poor, so arrogantly out of step with the market it has rendered the business plan virtually unworkable. Industry professionals stand bemused by the naivety of it all. The regime can put no substance behind what it is seeking to achieve.
Throwing out a few sound bites is meaningless.
What is the unique fan experience? What is a competitive championship club? What do Premier league ambitions look like? What does balance the books mean? Whose books?
What are the benchmarks in all this?
Can they in real terms even define what and when the new academy will deliver to the business?
The regime has had 2yrs to define their game plan. If you cannot define it you cannot achieve it.
Comments
On the non footballing side he has got the basics right ...
Very much agree .....there are questions around progress of Sparrows Lane, but if you'd asked me two years ago......would have probably been top of the list. Investing in infrastructure isn't sexy ......but from a business perspective it's the right thing to do......Give him an A.
do not stand scrutiny.
The challenge in assessing a business is to determine the merit of its underlying value proposition (VP), its traction in its market, its infrastructure to support the VP and the right people to deliver it. In a people business, "infrastructure" goes beyond fixed assets (stadium, academy etc.,)
To impose an unproven preconceived plan on a trading organisation will always risk totally destabilizing the business. It has. The investor bizarrely positions we "are only 2yrs into the project". What project? We are a business! Infrastructure investment rarely if ever offers standalone value.
It is crucial to know how and when investment will deliver to the business. Get it wrong and the business you are delivering to may well be in no position to benefit. Any benefit today is cosmetic. Long term benefit will be determined if/ when the "project" is delivered. For now it is almost a distraction.
Key to our business is having the right "people". For the monies spent this regime has failed to even get close to building the right infrastructure. It has all but destroyed the fabric of the club.
He didn't mess with the under 21s/18s and those teams are doing well - another tick in the box.
5 coaching changes, promoting Euell "messed" with the U21/ U18s.
A poor senior squad needing U21s/ U18s as the "next boy up" to play at a level for which they are not ready does more harm than good. How many have transitioned to the 1st team? Poyet, Gomez made just fleeting contributions - Fox, Lennon?
Regan Cook, Kennedy, Holmes-Dennis, Ahearne-Grant have disappeared while Lookman a full pro for barely 1yr has to carry our attacking threat. Less selected player development more lucky dip.
He has tied down our younger players to long term contracts - tick
Are the contracts set to deliver a first team squad or sales? With no details it is a generous assessment.
Now ....the first team which we all agree is rubbish, we can't say he hasn't spent money on it ... he has....Whilst Duchatelet must take the ultimate blame.....it doesn't mean he does not have the best intentions...
As a matter of policy he has; - appointed 4 overseas coaches with no UK coaching experience - denied those coaches the empowerment and resources to do the job - not permanently signed one English footballer directly from an English Club (Ba is French)
i) Powell was overruled and forced to accept players not up to the task. ii) Rigas' contract was not extended. He is brought back 18 months later. iii) Peeters was under resourced. Badly needing a target man to help Vetokele we still pay the price. With Henderson injured we had no experienced cover to the detriment of the team and Pope. iv) Luzon on the seasons eve was expecting 3 new additions - none arrive. He lost Bulot. How many have played left midfield this season? We had 2 unknown centre backs. v) Fraeye was appointed from the depths of the Belgian 3rd division. vi) He was about to appoint an unheard of Serbian.
5 were direct RD interventions. They offer a new definition of the "best of intentions".
His public outburst causing the resignation of the Head of Communications defines the regime. On what basis would you think he, behind closed doors, does not set the operating parameters across financing, infrastructure, coaching and maybe player recruitment sign off?
3 coaches state they had no final say on recruitment Why the secrecy on who does?
I supported his takeover at the outset on the basis he stepped up to the plate. I regretted but understood Powells' departure but as each day has gone by and continues to go by, it was/ is clear we further move away from any viable strategy, policy and business model.
The "vision" had merit but I cautioned it was going to be an enormous challenge to deliver, requiring a strong game plan, the right people and the right investment.
Today there is not a gram of substance behind the vision nor a shred of industry experience behind the strategy or policies being implemented in trying to fill the void.
To impose a new financial & operating business model on a market of which you have absolutely no experience is the definition of deluded arrogance. That RD has the pockets to pay for such delusion has been to the cost of us all.
To those who seek a more passive approach or to renew their season tickets you need not justify your actions. While we may not agree many of us understand your reasons.
"Damn the man with faint praise", and latch onto the flimsiest of justification for this "operational stumble" or that performance failure if you must but RD has had 27 months to put his stamp on the club. The results are there for all to see.
They are no accident. Could they be any uglier? I really hope we do not have to find out.
On every decision point the focus is not on a basis of what is good for the first team, but what is good for the balance sheet. They have removed the very ingredient needed to give their strategy an outside chance of working - a strong, balanced and experienced player framework competing successfully.
The implementation of their "vision" has been so poor, so arrogantly out of step with the market it has rendered the business plan virtually unworkable. Industry professionals stand bemused by the naivety of it all. The regime can put no substance behind what it is seeking to achieve.
On the non footballing side he has got the basics right ...
Very much agree .....there are questions around progress of Sparrows Lane, but if you'd asked me two years ago......would have probably been top of the list. Investing in infrastructure isn't sexy ......but from a business perspective it's the right thing to do......Give him an A.
do not stand scrutiny.
The challenge in assessing a business is to determine the merit of its underlying value proposition (VP), its traction in its market, its infrastructure to support the VP and the right people to deliver it. In a people business, "infrastructure" goes beyond fixed assets (stadium, academy etc.,)
To impose an unproven preconceived plan on a trading organisation will always risk totally destabilizing the business. It has. The investor bizarrely positions we "are only 2yrs into the project". What project? We are a business! Infrastructure investment rarely if ever offers standalone value.
It is crucial to know how and when investment will deliver to the business. Get it wrong and the business you are delivering to may well be in no position to benefit. Any benefit today is cosmetic. Long term benefit will be determined if/ when the "project" is delivered. For now it is almost a distraction.
@Grapevine49 Some very good points, and I strongly agree with your assessment of the vision, or lack thereof. There are a couple points where I either respectfully disagree with you or that I think are worth further examination:
Not everything that has been done has been in the name of the balance sheet. Were that the case, Lookman, JBG, and any other salable assets would have been gone in January. Instead, we've brought in Motta, Young, Fanni, and Johnson who will all, presumably, be on pretty high wages given their lack of transfer fees. This is not to mention Texeira. This is not to say that I think we spend wisely, but look at Blackpool at the start of last year, or Portsmouth as things were falling apart, or even Bolton. Everything that isn't/wasn't tied down goes.
Furthermore, the club continues to lose money. This is a damning indictment of the vision, but for me a reason to show that short term finances are not the only thing driving decisions.
The challenge in assessing a business is to determine the merit of its underlying value proposition (VP), its traction in its market, its infrastructure to support the VP and the right people to deliver it. In a people business, "infrastructure" goes beyond fixed assets (stadium, academy etc.,)
To impose an unproven preconceived plan on a trading organisation will always risk totally destabilizing the business. It has. The investor bizarrely positions we "are only 2yrs into the project". What project? We are a business! Infrastructure investment rarely if ever offers standalone value.
I think we could go really far down the rabbit hole here, but I suspect that the point of contention is what a "people business" means in this instance, and from that, what the Value Prop is. To the regime, people and thus Value Prop=players first and foremost (I believe). To most of us on here, people/VP=supporters, players, etc. I'm going to play somewhat devil's advocate here and argue from the former, even though I believe more in the latter.
As a "people business" where the salable assets are the Value Proposition, the most important people are the staff (players). Therefore, improving infrastructure to grow and nurture those within the organization is key to potentially raising underlying value. Improving training and youth facilities is an investment in the people. It is a way of providing them a better means to grow themselves and their abilities. The same could be said of the improvements to the pitch. I do not think the likes of Diarra, JBG, Igor, Mak, etc. would be better with the pitch we had a couple years back. Again, investing in something internally that helps to make your people better.
The case could be made, though far more thinly, that investing in some infrastructure (scoreboard, pitch) is also an investment for supporters, as it makes the "match day experience" better. I saw a lot of us in League One, and I like that we have a pitch made of grass and not mud. But that is where this part of the argument ends.
Lastly: To impose an unproven preconceived plan on a trading organisation will always risk totally destabilizing the business.
I may be misinterpreting you here, but the problem is we're not a "trading" business, we're privately owned. As such, supporters are not technically "stakeholders" in the strictest sense of the word, and we have no input into operations or insight into vision. If we did, and I'm a huge believer that every club should have representatives of Supporters Trusts on the board, then we could make the claims you make about hollow vision at the board level. Instead we're left on the outside of the bubble trying to shout in.
Re-reading that last paragraph, I suspect when you say "trading" you mean an operating business, and I take your point. I just want to stress how important supporters as legal stakeholders are.
SD Thanks for your comments. I am trying hard not to labour the point but out of courtesy will respond.
Not everything that has been done has been in the name of the balance sheet. Were that the case, Lookman, JBG, and any other saleable assets would have been gone in January.
Instead, we've brought in Motta, Young, Fanni, & Johnson.....presumably, be on pretty high wages.....not to mention Texeira. This is not to say we spend wisely, but look at Blackpool.....or Portsmouth or even Bolton. Everything that isn't/wasn't tied down goes.
Market comparisons are fine but no two situations are alike. Have there been worse regimes? Yes but alignment with other failing regimes is no endorsement.
The actions detailed are remedial. They come under the heading "S**t how do I not lose £6mn p.a. Championship revenue". They arise because the "business model" failed again to invest appropriately as per 2014/15 when they had to bring in Diarra, Johnson & Eagles.
Comment on Motta, Young, Fanni & Johnson is generous. Likely none will be with us post season. Temporary staff hired to get over a structural crisis they are “sticking plasters” on a wound created by a flawed investment strategy. The likes of Texeira are 6 months too late.
Furthermore, the club continues to lose money. This is a damning indictment of the vision, but for me a reason to show that short term finances are not the only thing driving decisions.
The club was always going to lose money. It is why the previous owners wanted out. Funding is key. It is structured to suit the regime. Purchase cost, non-relegation clause, fixed & liquid asset infrastructure, commercial debt, initial working capital could all have been funded by equity.
The disconnect lies with a) the value proposition b) investment in people
To the regime, people and thus Value Prop=players first and foremost (I believe). To most of us on here, people/VP=supporters, players, etc.....
As a "people business" where the saleable assets are the Value Proposition, the most important people are the staff (players)......improving infrastructure......is key to potentially raising underlying value. Improving training and youth facilities is an investment in the people.
This is "regime think".
To argue players are the Value Proposition as they are saleable assets is the regimes business model. It is why they are failing.
To focus "infrastructure investment" on fixed assets ignores the key piece. In a "people" business you have to invest in the right people infrastructure to support those you are trying to develop, for them to perform alongside, to learn and gain confidence from.
When they step out to perform and compete under pressure, the quality of the training pitch, the expert data analysis, the video facilities, the gymnasium are nothing in comparison to the quality and experience of those who they play alongside.
It is one reason why players want to progress. They want to learn from playing with and against better players.
The Value proposition is to be a competitive successful Championship with ambitions to be in the Premier League.
Deliver this VP and you will bring revenue & support from your client base, set the framework to complete the players development and the platform for player sales.
The playing infrastructure is the key to the Value Proposition.
In their arrogance this regime chose to cannibalise the playing infrastructure to pursue a theoretical business model over practical market expediency adding significant new debt in the process. Over 100 players have been employed in 27months.
Spending money in support of an unproven policy is not a virtue.
There is nothing wrong with improving the training and academy facilities but when will you secure a return on such an investment? Is it even quantifiable?. How many annual sales will it have to achieve to fund increased operating costs, recovery of development costs and normal trading losses?
Today the benefits are peripheral to those generated by investing in the right balance, the right experience, the right quality, the right quantity in the senior squad which sets the right framework for development players to learn and succeed.
This defines a people business. I apologise if I have mislead you. A people business is defined as one where the success is entirely reliant on the successfully performing skillset of the people involved.
No core product, no manufacturing, no core service function but an individual using their acquired skillset to perform on behalf of the business.
To operate successfully needs a great deal of “in market” training, market experience and personal knowledge. It needs the right people around them, at the time they are performing to enable them to perform to the best of their ability, to learn and develop.
You can learn all the technical, tactical and physical skills within the academy. You can display them to excess in the U21 squad but to display them consistently in the highly competitive, intense environment of senior football needs all the support it can get.
Stop gap solutions aside it is as a matter of policy simply not there.
An Academy provides the raw potential. The senior squad provides the development environment for that potential to successfully deliver to the market and in so doing prove themselves a marketable asset.
To impose an unproven preconceived plan on a trading organisation will always risk totally destabilizing the business.
A trading business is indeed an operational business in that it is trading in supplying goods and services to consumers and other businesses. I used the definition in relation to a) destabilizing the fundamental nature of how the business was operating b) differentiate operational activity from being a "Project".
Comments
RD: “Me and a few other people. Few people see things clearly. Many people think tomorrow will be just like yesterday. It's normal that they think like that, but in practice it is not like that. I belong to the small group of people who think tomorrow will be different from today."
More correct to say in the case of Charlton that only you can't see what is blindingly obvious to the vast majority of others.
Your CEO and supporting appointees (Keohane for one) are not competent. Your transfer policies have failed, and the atmosphere of the club and large proportions of the support have been destroyed during your ownership.
You have failed, your vision has failed and you should sell and, if necessary start again elsewhere in England probably in Division 1.
At this stage of the game, people must surely realise that things are a mess.
I'm at a point now where I hope we either end up with sensible owners, or we go completely the other way toward brilliant madness. Say what you will, but it would be nothing if not fun (imagine the fancy dress days we could do!!!!)
I'd like to ask first and foremost that you don't shoot the messenger, as I'm playing devil's advocate here. Also, some of the above things, in theory, I agree with. Having an owner who can handle our existing debt and operating costs is good, of course the problem is having one who does that anticipating he can turn things around and actually makes things worse is what we have, and is bad.
He is as bright as a button and doesn't give a fuck what Guilt ridden people think of him.
Safe pair of hands.
Mad as a Box of frogs ? Maybe.
Less than Duchatelet thou.
You only have to look at the thread about our Staprix debt to realise, the sky is falling.
But then again, the oceans will be almost entirely devoid of fish by 2048, but not many of us are doing anything about that, so who are we to judge?
They also believe the world is run against them by evil (or possibly more stupid) people with agenda which are not theirs (who doesn't believe that?).
Duchatelet does not have, as far as I am aware a penchant for turquoise and not has he played in goal for Coventry. They both have had similar and awful hairstyles though.
I understand David Icke has managed to get a cult off the ground and is considered a motivational speaker.
Unfortunately here there is a disparity as Roland has managed to employ a bunch of c__ts and every communication is more demotivatational than the last.
David Icke beats Roland Duchatelet in minor Celebrity Death Match with a triple back flip over the ring, ripping off Duchatelet's head with a leg grip to reveal, to Icke's disappointment, the normal bodily fluids of someone who has had their head ripped off, and no actual lizard inside at all. Icke claims it was all metaphorical.
If he might leave if we leave the EU
I know which way I'm voting now
Our team has competed at the highest levels of the game. Until Jan 3, 2014 the club had operated for over 100yrs in the pursuit of being a successful football team in attaining the highest possible status.
From Jan 4, 2014 it is no longer the aim. This regime does not operate to the same values.
The sporting goal of many decades has gone.
I acknowledge the social aspects to which some are determinedly attached but the club experience they have long enjoyed/ endured will, under this regime, be there in name alone.
M. Gliksten & Huyler belong to a different time. For MG it was a family duty. It was not his passion but he often picked up the annual "tab". With player sales some funds were invariably reinvested in the team. The sale to Huyler was based on his dream to restore former glories. Let down by a few people he lost a fortune in funding the club until an 11th hour rescue.
No matter their failings their focus was for the club to progress on the field of play.
Condemnation of this regime comes precisely because of their perversion of this "raison d'etre".
To argue if results were better is facile. They are not. With poor results people will search for answers.
It is the answers which present the problem.
This regime has imposed a different value set which does not pursue sporting excellence but a financial business model. It is the latter which takes and will always take precedence. It sets the agenda and framework for every decision.
On every decision point the focus is not on a basis of what is good for the first team, but what is good for the balance sheet. They have removed the very ingredient needed to give their strategy an outside chance of working - a strong, balanced and experienced player framework competing successfully.
The implementation of their "vision" has been so poor, so arrogantly out of step with the market it has rendered the business plan virtually unworkable. Industry professionals stand bemused by the naivety of it all. The regime can put no substance behind what it is seeking to achieve.
Throwing out a few sound bites is meaningless.
What is the unique fan experience?
What is a competitive championship club?
What do Premier league ambitions look like?
What does balance the books mean? Whose books?
What are the benchmarks in all this?
Can they in real terms even define what and when the new academy will deliver to the business?
The regime has had 2yrs to define their game plan. If you cannot define it you cannot achieve it.
Comments
On the non footballing side he has got the basics right ...
Very much agree .....there are questions around progress of Sparrows Lane, but if you'd asked me two years ago......would have probably been top of the list. Investing in infrastructure isn't sexy ......but from a business perspective it's the right thing to do......Give him an A.
do not stand scrutiny.
The challenge in assessing a business is to determine the merit of its underlying value proposition (VP), its traction in its market, its infrastructure to support the VP and the right people to deliver it. In a people business, "infrastructure" goes beyond fixed assets (stadium, academy etc.,)
To impose an unproven preconceived plan on a trading organisation will always risk totally destabilizing the business. It has. The investor bizarrely positions we "are only 2yrs into the project". What project? We are a business! Infrastructure investment rarely if ever offers standalone value.
It is crucial to know how and when investment will deliver to the business. Get it wrong and the business you are delivering to may well be in no position to benefit. Any benefit today is cosmetic. Long term benefit will be determined if/ when the "project" is delivered. For now it is almost a distraction.
Key to our business is having the right "people". For the monies spent this regime has failed to even get close to building the right infrastructure. It has all but destroyed the fabric of the club.
He didn't mess with the under 21s/18s and those teams are doing well - another tick in the box.
5 coaching changes, promoting Euell "messed" with the U21/ U18s.
A poor senior squad needing U21s/ U18s as the "next boy up" to play at a level for which they are not ready does more harm than good. How many have transitioned to the 1st team? Poyet, Gomez made just fleeting contributions - Fox, Lennon?
Regan Cook, Kennedy, Holmes-Dennis, Ahearne-Grant have disappeared while Lookman a full pro for barely 1yr has to carry our attacking threat. Less selected player development more lucky dip.
He has tied down our younger players to long term contracts - tick
Are the contracts set to deliver a first team squad or sales? With no details it is a generous assessment.
Now ....the first team which we all agree is rubbish, we can't say he hasn't spent money on it ... he has....Whilst Duchatelet must take the ultimate blame.....it doesn't mean he does not have the best intentions...
As a matter of policy he has;
- appointed 4 overseas coaches with no UK coaching experience
- denied those coaches the empowerment and resources to do the job
- not permanently signed one English footballer directly from an English Club (Ba is French)
i) Powell was overruled and forced to accept players not up to the task.
ii) Rigas' contract was not extended. He is brought back 18 months later.
iii) Peeters was under resourced. Badly needing a target man to help Vetokele we still pay the price. With Henderson injured we had no experienced cover to the detriment of the team and Pope.
iv) Luzon on the seasons eve was expecting 3 new additions - none arrive. He lost Bulot. How many have played left midfield this season? We had 2 unknown centre backs.
v) Fraeye was appointed from the depths of the Belgian 3rd division.
vi) He was about to appoint an unheard of Serbian.
5 were direct RD interventions. They offer a new definition of the "best of intentions".
His public outburst causing the resignation of the Head of Communications defines the regime. On what basis would you think he, behind closed doors, does not set the operating parameters across financing, infrastructure, coaching and maybe player recruitment sign off?
3 coaches state they had no final say on recruitment Why the secrecy on who does?
I supported his takeover at the outset on the basis he stepped up to the plate. I regretted but understood Powells' departure but as each day has gone by and continues to go by, it was/ is clear we further move away from any viable strategy, policy and business model.
The "vision" had merit but I cautioned it was going to be an enormous challenge to deliver, requiring a strong game plan, the right people and the right investment.
Today there is not a gram of substance behind the vision nor a shred of industry experience behind the strategy or policies being implemented in trying to fill the void.
To impose a new financial & operating business model on a market of which you have absolutely no experience is the definition of deluded arrogance. That RD has the pockets to pay for such delusion has been to the cost of us all.
To those who seek a more passive approach or to renew their season tickets you need not justify your actions. While we may not agree many of us understand your reasons.
"Damn the man with faint praise", and latch onto the flimsiest of justification for this "operational stumble" or that performance failure if you must but RD has had 27 months to put his stamp on the club. The results are there for all to see.
They are no accident. Could they be any uglier? I really hope we do not have to find out.
Not everything that has been done has been in the name of the balance sheet. Were that the case, Lookman, JBG, and any other salable assets would have been gone in January. Instead, we've brought in Motta, Young, Fanni, and Johnson who will all, presumably, be on pretty high wages given their lack of transfer fees. This is not to mention Texeira. This is not to say that I think we spend wisely, but look at Blackpool at the start of last year, or Portsmouth as things were falling apart, or even Bolton. Everything that isn't/wasn't tied down goes.
Furthermore, the club continues to lose money. This is a damning indictment of the vision, but for me a reason to show that short term finances are not the only thing driving decisions.
The challenge in assessing a business is to determine the merit of its underlying value proposition (VP), its traction in its market, its infrastructure to support the VP and the right people to deliver it. In a people business, "infrastructure" goes beyond fixed assets (stadium, academy etc.,)
To impose an unproven preconceived plan on a trading organisation will always risk totally destabilizing the business. It has. The investor bizarrely positions we "are only 2yrs into the project". What project? We are a business! Infrastructure investment rarely if ever offers standalone value.
I think we could go really far down the rabbit hole here, but I suspect that the point of contention is what a "people business" means in this instance, and from that, what the Value Prop is. To the regime, people and thus Value Prop=players first and foremost (I believe). To most of us on here, people/VP=supporters, players, etc. I'm going to play somewhat devil's advocate here and argue from the former, even though I believe more in the latter.
As a "people business" where the salable assets are the Value Proposition, the most important people are the staff (players). Therefore, improving infrastructure to grow and nurture those within the organization is key to potentially raising underlying value. Improving training and youth facilities is an investment in the people. It is a way of providing them a better means to grow themselves and their abilities. The same could be said of the improvements to the pitch. I do not think the likes of Diarra, JBG, Igor, Mak, etc. would be better with the pitch we had a couple years back. Again, investing in something internally that helps to make your people better.
The case could be made, though far more thinly, that investing in some infrastructure (scoreboard, pitch) is also an investment for supporters, as it makes the "match day experience" better. I saw a lot of us in League One, and I like that we have a pitch made of grass and not mud. But that is where this part of the argument ends.
Lastly: To impose an unproven preconceived plan on a trading organisation will always risk totally destabilizing the business.
I may be misinterpreting you here, but the problem is we're not a "trading" business, we're privately owned. As such, supporters are not technically "stakeholders" in the strictest sense of the word, and we have no input into operations or insight into vision. If we did, and I'm a huge believer that every club should have representatives of Supporters Trusts on the board, then we could make the claims you make about hollow vision at the board level. Instead we're left on the outside of the bubble trying to shout in.
Re-reading that last paragraph, I suspect when you say "trading" you mean an operating business, and I take your point. I just want to stress how important supporters as legal stakeholders are.
No Roland hasn't got it right!
Not everything that has been done has been in the name of the balance sheet. Were that the case, Lookman, JBG, and any other saleable assets would have been gone in January.
Instead, we've brought in Motta, Young, Fanni, & Johnson.....presumably, be on pretty high wages.....not to mention Texeira. This is not to say we spend wisely, but look at Blackpool.....or Portsmouth or even Bolton. Everything that isn't/wasn't tied down goes.
Market comparisons are fine but no two situations are alike. Have there been worse regimes? Yes but alignment with other failing regimes is no endorsement.
The actions detailed are remedial. They come under the heading "S**t how do I not lose £6mn p.a. Championship revenue". They arise because the "business model" failed again to invest appropriately as per 2014/15 when they had to bring in Diarra, Johnson & Eagles.
Comment on Motta, Young, Fanni & Johnson is generous. Likely none will be with us post season. Temporary staff hired to get over a structural crisis they are “sticking plasters” on a wound created by a flawed investment strategy. The likes of Texeira are 6 months too late.
Furthermore, the club continues to lose money. This is a damning indictment of the vision, but for me a reason to show that short term finances are not the only thing driving decisions.
The club was always going to lose money. It is why the previous owners wanted out. Funding is key. It is structured to suit the regime. Purchase cost, non-relegation clause, fixed & liquid asset infrastructure, commercial debt, initial working capital could all have been funded by equity.
The disconnect lies with a) the value proposition b) investment in people
To the regime, people and thus Value Prop=players first and foremost (I believe). To most of us on here, people/VP=supporters, players, etc.....
As a "people business" where the saleable assets are the Value Proposition, the most important people are the staff (players)......improving infrastructure......is key to potentially raising underlying value. Improving training and youth facilities is an investment in the people.
This is "regime think".
To argue players are the Value Proposition as they are saleable assets is the regimes business model. It is why they are failing.
To focus "infrastructure investment" on fixed assets ignores the key piece. In a "people" business you have to invest in the right people infrastructure to support those you are trying to develop, for them to perform alongside, to learn and gain confidence from.
When they step out to perform and compete under pressure, the quality of the training pitch, the expert data analysis, the video facilities, the gymnasium are nothing in comparison to the quality and experience of those who they play alongside.
It is one reason why players want to progress. They want to learn from playing with and against better players.
The Value proposition is to be a competitive successful Championship with ambitions to be in the Premier League.
Deliver this VP and you will bring revenue & support from your client base, set the framework to complete the players development and the platform for player sales.
The playing infrastructure is the key to the Value Proposition.
In their arrogance this regime chose to cannibalise the playing infrastructure to pursue a theoretical business model over practical market expediency adding significant new debt in the process. Over 100 players have been employed in 27months.
Spending money in support of an unproven policy is not a virtue.
There is nothing wrong with improving the training and academy facilities but when will you secure a return on such an investment? Is it even quantifiable?. How many annual sales will it have to achieve to fund increased operating costs, recovery of development costs and normal trading losses?
Today the benefits are peripheral to those generated by investing in the right balance, the right experience, the right quality, the right quantity in the senior squad which sets the right framework for development players to learn and succeed.
This defines a people business. I apologise if I have mislead you. A people business is defined as one where the success is entirely reliant on the successfully performing skillset of the people involved.
No core product, no manufacturing, no core service function but an individual using their acquired skillset to perform on behalf of the business.
To operate successfully needs a great deal of “in market” training, market experience and personal knowledge. It needs the right people around them, at the time they are performing to enable them to perform to the best of their ability, to learn and develop.
You can learn all the technical, tactical and physical skills within the academy. You can display them to excess in the U21 squad but to display them consistently in the highly competitive, intense environment of senior football needs all the support it can get.
Stop gap solutions aside it is as a matter of policy simply not there.
An Academy provides the raw potential. The senior squad provides the development environment for that potential to successfully deliver to the market and in so doing prove themselves a marketable asset.
To impose an unproven preconceived plan on a trading organisation will always risk totally destabilizing the business.
A trading business is indeed an operational business in that it is trading in supplying goods and services to consumers and other businesses. I used the definition in relation to a) destabilizing the fundamental nature of how the business was operating b) differentiate operational activity from being a "Project".