It seems to me that it is a response to criticism of his absentee landlord approach. Did someone have the temerity to raise the issue at the meeting, or are 1.5% of his active brain cells sensitive to the complaints heard from the fans over the last 2.5 years?
It also seems to be his way of backing the current SMT, saying he hasn't got time for Charlton and bollocks if you think he is going to interfere in the SMT or what it does.
Why doesn't he sell us and go and buy wet spam. Then he can see fans mingling every week, and the combination of prem riches and tax payer subsidies might help him break even!
I'm not sure if Roly's original spiel has lost anything through coming to us as a second hand quote (no offence, Louis), but income and resources are quite different things - indeed both can be interpreted in different ways. Normally, you would expect a sixty-nine year old businessman's resources to be considerably more than his income unless you were talking about a very long timescale for the income, or a very bad business man. It strikes me that it would be a unique coincidence indeed if his resources and income matched each other to within 0.5%. So unique in fact, that I'm sceptical as to whether there's any truth in this or whether it's one of those bits of throw away nonsense that you'd normally expect from Meire. Perhaps he has tutored her well in the ancient Flemish art of spouting, and believing, total bollocks.
Let's go with it for a moment though and look at the context in which it was used. According to the quote, he doesn't spend as much time as he could on Charlton because it only equates to 1.5% of some (ill-defined) monetary value. What sort of way is that to run your life? I do not know of one single person who's told me that's how they arrange their time. I've never read one biography of a person who was similarly organised. It seems to be the flawed logic of someone who "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing". It's the sort of 'logic' you'd expect from someone who wears duck tape on their shoes - they didn't cost much, so I won't waste my time replacing them. I dread to think how he manages other aspects of his life if this is his philosophy: This toilet paper is so cheap, I won't bother wiping my arse properly. The air that I'm breathing, it's free - complete waste of my time!
To be fair, I can see how it might work for an investor with a broad portfolio of businesses. Of course, they wouldn't want to spend a disproportionate amount of time on one business at the expense of the others. So some sort of financial based time-allocation may just work, assuming that all other things are equal. But, all other things can't possibly be equal. We know that Charlton is losing money hand over fist. According to one of Roland's trusty lap-dogs, he is pumping £1m a month into the club. If a 1.5% ratio of spend is applied across his business he'd be blowing £67m a month all told. An amount that would wipe even Roland out in less months than it would take him to get us relegated. These figures demonstrate why it would be folly to put too much trust in either the 1.5% or the £1mpm. What is not in doubt though, is that he has transformed Charlton from a disappointing business with a great potential, to one that's losing millions, has lost about a third of its customer base, and is now at least one year further away from the promised land than it was. It is, in terms of the Boston Matrix a dog. A complete and utter dog!
Now, the Boston Matrix is a very useful tool for informing marketers how much, and what kind of, effort to put into different products. It strikes me that it would be a far better model to inform Roland's time management than percentage of 'income/resources'. What would it tell him? Well, that depends on whether the club could be turned around and, and if so, how much effort and resource would it take. If it can be turned around relatively easily, it may be worth spending a disproportionate amount of time on that element of the business in order to get things right. If not, and this is certainly the case for Charlton under Duchatelet, the key phrase is 'divest'. Cut-your losses. Get rid of it. Focus your energies on what you do well.
Roland, stop being so vain. You will never make this business work, even if you were to invest a reasonable amount of time on it. Divest yourself of it. Let someone else, someone with the necessary knowledge, skills, willpower and time, have a go. Charlton Athletic could be a very successful business, but it never will be under someone who thinks the way to apportion their time is by calculating a percentage of the money they have in a thing. Just go.
I'm not sure if Roly's original spiel has lost anything through coming to us as a second hand quote (no offence, Louis), but income and resources are quite different things - indeed both can be interpreted in different ways. Normally, you would expect a sixty-nine year old businessman's resources to be considerably more than his income unless you were talking about a very long timescale for the income, or a very bad business man. It strikes me that it would be a unique coincidence indeed if his resources and income matched each other to within 0.5%. So unique in fact, that I'm sceptical as to whether there's any truth in this or whether it's one of those bits of throw away nonsense that you'd normally expect from Meire. Perhaps he has tutored her well in the ancient Flemish art of spouting, and believing, total bollocks.
Let's go with it for a moment though and look at the context in which it was used. According to the quote, he doesn't spend as much time as he could on Charlton because it only equates to 1.5% of some (ill-defined) monetary value. What sort of way is that to run your life? I do not know of one single person who's told me that's how they arrange their time. I've never read one biography of a person who was similarly organised. It seems to be the flawed logic of someone who "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing". It's the sort of 'logic' you'd expect from someone who wears duck tape on their shoes - they didn't cost much, so I won't waste my time replacing them. I dread to think how he manages other aspects of his life if this is his philosophy: This toilet paper is so cheap, I won't bother wiping my arse properly. The air that I'm breathing, it's free - complete waste of my time!
To be fair, I can see how it might work for an investor with a broad portfolio of businesses. Of course, they wouldn't want to spend a disproportionate amount of time on one business at the expense of the others. So some sort of financial based time-allocation may just work, assuming that all other things are equal. But, all other things can't possibly be equal. We know that Charlton is losing money hand over fist. According to one of Roland's trusty lap-dogs, he is pumping £1m a month into the club. If a 1.5% ratio of spend is applied across his business he'd be blowing £67m a month all told. An amount that would wipe even Roland out in less months than it would take him to get us relegated. These figures demonstrate why it would be folly to put too much trust in either the 1.5% or the £1mpm. What is not in doubt though, is that he has transformed Charlton from a disappointing business with a great potential, to one that's losing millions, has lost about a third of its customer base, and is now at least one year further away from the promised land than it was. It is, in terms of the Boston Matrix a dog. A complete and utter dog!
Now, the Boston Matrix is a very useful tool for informing marketers how much, and what kind of, effort to put into different products. It strikes me that it would be a far better model to inform Roland's time management than percentage of 'income/resources'. What would it tell him? Well, that depends on whether the club could be turned around and, and if so, how much effort and resource would it take. If it can be turned around relatively easily, it may be worth spending a disproportionate amount of time on that element of the business in order to get things right. If not, and this is certainly the case for Charlton under Duchatelet, the key phrase is 'divest'. Cut-your losses. Get rid of it. Focus your energies on what you do well.
Roland, stop being so vain. You will never make this business work, even if you were to invest a reasonable amount of time on it. Divest yourself of it. Let someone else, someone with the necessary knowledge, skills, willpower and time, have a go. Charlton Athletic could be a very successful business, but it never will be under someone who thinks the way to apportion their time is by calculating a percentage of the money they have in a thing. Just go.
Can't remember which thread now, but I did a "back of the envelope" calculation and worked out that even if he is losing circa £12mn a year on Charlton, the dividends on his Melexis holdings alone would pay for it. So he'd hardly notice. While he's conflating income and resources in a dumb way, you can see where he's coming from as those dividends could be increasing the value of his resources instead. One thing the money is not doing of course is increasing or even maintaining the market value of the club.
So target 20k members and Charlton fans employed in the club did not tip off the wider fan base of the meeting so that he could have been got at. Shame on them.
So target 20k members and Charlton fans employed in the club did not tip off the wider fan base of the meeting so that he could have been got at. Shame on them.
Precisely. Those fans and that includes EKA whom seem to believe they are in with the owners, let me suggest you lord it up now. Because when these lot sell up, the rest of us won't forget.
Another tick in the fan engagement box for the regime, can't wait to see the PR company's spin on this one.
Needs showing up for what it is by CARD to the media as a fag end attempt at discourse by a mad megalomaniac at a clandestine meeting with a handful of fans, totally unrepresentative of the majority view.
They still don't get it do they? Minor fan engagement when they can pull the wool over the eyes of a few of those present, but the cold hard facts get out and the alienation of the wider support base grows.
Comments
It seems to me that it is a response to criticism of his absentee landlord approach. Did someone have the temerity to raise the issue at the meeting, or are 1.5% of his active brain cells sensitive to the complaints heard from the fans over the last 2.5 years?
It also seems to be his way of backing the current SMT, saying he hasn't got time for Charlton and bollocks if you think he is going to interfere in the SMT or what it does.
Depresses the f*ck out of football.
The most sad boring depressing millionaire alive throughout history.
Just f*ck off and let Charlton have its club back.
Sad old git
Let's go with it for a moment though and look at the context in which it was used. According to the quote, he doesn't spend as much time as he could on Charlton because it only equates to 1.5% of some (ill-defined) monetary value. What sort of way is that to run your life? I do not know of one single person who's told me that's how they arrange their time. I've never read one biography of a person who was similarly organised. It seems to be the flawed logic of someone who "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing". It's the sort of 'logic' you'd expect from someone who wears duck tape on their shoes - they didn't cost much, so I won't waste my time replacing them. I dread to think how he manages other aspects of his life if this is his philosophy: This toilet paper is so cheap, I won't bother wiping my arse properly. The air that I'm breathing, it's free - complete waste of my time!
To be fair, I can see how it might work for an investor with a broad portfolio of businesses. Of course, they wouldn't want to spend a disproportionate amount of time on one business at the expense of the others. So some sort of financial based time-allocation may just work, assuming that all other things are equal. But, all other things can't possibly be equal. We know that Charlton is losing money hand over fist. According to one of Roland's trusty lap-dogs, he is pumping £1m a month into the club. If a 1.5% ratio of spend is applied across his business he'd be blowing £67m a month all told. An amount that would wipe even Roland out in less months than it would take him to get us relegated. These figures demonstrate why it would be folly to put too much trust in either the 1.5% or the £1mpm. What is not in doubt though, is that he has transformed Charlton from a disappointing business with a great potential, to one that's losing millions, has lost about a third of its customer base, and is now at least one year further away from the promised land than it was. It is, in terms of the Boston Matrix a dog. A complete and utter dog!
Now, the Boston Matrix is a very useful tool for informing marketers how much, and what kind of, effort to put into different products. It strikes me that it would be a far better model to inform Roland's time management than percentage of 'income/resources'. What would it tell him? Well, that depends on whether the club could be turned around and, and if so, how much effort and resource would it take. If it can be turned around relatively easily, it may be worth spending a disproportionate amount of time on that element of the business in order to get things right. If not, and this is certainly the case for Charlton under Duchatelet, the key phrase is 'divest'. Cut-your losses. Get rid of it. Focus your energies on what you do well.
Roland, stop being so vain. You will never make this business work, even if you were to invest a reasonable amount of time on it. Divest yourself of it. Let someone else, someone with the necessary knowledge, skills, willpower and time, have a go. Charlton Athletic could be a very successful business, but it never will be under someone who thinks the way to apportion their time is by calculating a percentage of the money they have in a thing. Just go.
But seriously ... what a state of affairs. Secret meetings held on a quiet day with persons unknown. So much for building rapport and trust.
While he's conflating income and resources in a dumb way, you can see where he's coming from as those dividends could be increasing the value of his resources instead. One thing the money is not doing of course is increasing or even maintaining the market value of the club.
Those fans and that includes EKA whom seem to believe they are in with the owners, let me suggest you lord it up now.
Because when these lot sell up, the rest of us won't forget.
Needs showing up for what it is by CARD to the media as a fag end attempt at discourse by a mad megalomaniac at a clandestine meeting with a handful of fans, totally unrepresentative of the majority view.