as someone else alluded to there have been ongoing investigations into protests since last season so maybe this meeting is the culmination of that investigation and nothing else?
Possibly, but the article seems to indicate that this is the result of "grave concerns" of the running of Charlton. Now, could that be a part of a larger investigation into protests? Quite possible.
But, if this is just a stand-alone, as far as I can tell, and as Prague says, this is unprecedented.
Do they actually have any authority though? Fair enough Summoning her, but if they actually wanted to do something, what could they possibly do?
Exactly... they cant take Charlton Athletic away from these owners because who'd pay the wages for Players / Staff (down to those who man the ticket office) at the club.
I guess the only thing they could do is enforce Administration upon us that doesnt see us get a 10-point deduction which'll hopefully allows a new party to come in and takeover the club
On what grounds could they do that? They couldn't do anything like that, we haven't broken any rules.
Clutching at straws here, but what about the alleged issues around the Tony Watt transfer?
Not enough for administration, but it would be good if some light was shone upon Roland's dealings
Interesting point @Algarveaddick about not trying to win games, but the club could (rightly) argue that not being able to reschedule the Swindon game meant we weren't in a position to win.
Could they argue that KM & Co are bringing the game into disrepute? It would also be great to have some sort of CAST representation to brief the FA prior.
But as far as I know, Olster, CAFC could have turned down the televising of the game, knowing it clashed with international fixtures and we were likely to have a weakened team? It actually goes back to them knowing we would be lacking key players and not caring whether we won or not? There is no financial gain for the away team, so "needing the money" can't be used as an excuse.
Charlton agreed the Swindon game on Sky before Magennis and Botaka were signed and once agreed that's it, so just unfortunate.
Ah right. Thanks for putting me straight, CE.
That said, I don't see why, when they can switch games for TV purposes at three or four weeks notice, we could not have withdrawn with two months and 12 days notice? But that's by the by.
Do they actually have any authority though? Fair enough Summoning her, but if they actually wanted to do something, what could they possibly do?
Exactly... they cant take Charlton Athletic away from these owners because who'd pay the wages for Players / Staff (down to those who man the ticket office) at the club.
I guess the only thing they could do is enforce Administration upon us that doesnt see us get a 10-point deduction which'll hopefully allows a new party to come in and takeover the club
On what grounds could they do that? They couldn't do anything like that, we haven't broken any rules.
Clutching at straws here, but what about the alleged issues around the Tony Watt transfer?
Not enough for administration, but it would be good if some light was shone upon Roland's dealings
Not to mention Duchatelet's third-party ownership of Michy Batshuayi
As others have said this is certainly a step in the right direction and it means that someone somewhere is obviously taking notice. But what realistically can the FA do? Can they force him to sell up? I doubt it.
She'll spout the usual rubbish (CARD can wheel out the Katrien bingo again) about investing 38m, the training ground, a new pitch, no interested buyers etc etc and the FA will say 'ok then thanks for coming'.
Interesting that they've summoned her though. Why have they never summoned Oyston or the Coventry owners? Is it simply because our protests are far better and gaining more publicity?
Interesting point @Algarveaddick about not trying to win games, but the club could (rightly) argue that not being able to reschedule the Swindon game meant we weren't in a position to win.
Could they argue that KM & Co are bringing the game into disrepute? It would also be great to have some sort of CAST representation to brief the FA prior.
But as far as I know, Olster, CAFC could have turned down the televising of the game, knowing it clashed with international fixtures and we were likely to have a weakened team? It actually goes back to them knowing we would be lacking key players and not caring whether we won or not? There is no financial gain for the away team, so "needing the money" can't be used as an excuse.
Charlton agreed the Swindon game on Sky before Magennis and Botaka were signed and once agreed that's it, so just unfortunate.
I thought I read on here it was agreed a day before they signed. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick but if it was then the club would have known they were coming and should have had the foresight to pass up on the TV game.
The FA knows what has gone on, Katy & Co know what they have done wrong. One side is useless, has a head in the sand attitude and is only interested in creaming money off football. The FA is pretty much the same.
I can't see that the FA will have any authority here but this will embarrass her and Roland. For a young 30 something trying to make a career in football, being hauled in front of the FA will be yet another tarnish on her CV and likely give her even less opportunity to sit on panels and the like. This is a very positive thing for us fans I think. Needs to play our CARDs right.
Interesting point @Algarveaddick about not trying to win games, but the club could (rightly) argue that not being able to reschedule the Swindon game meant we weren't in a position to win.
Could they argue that KM & Co are bringing the game into disrepute? It would also be great to have some sort of CAST representation to brief the FA prior.
But as far as I know, Olster, CAFC could have turned down the televising of the game, knowing it clashed with international fixtures and we were likely to have a weakened team? It actually goes back to them knowing we would be lacking key players and not caring whether we won or not? There is no financial gain for the away team, so "needing the money" can't be used as an excuse.
Charlton agreed the Swindon game on Sky before Magennis and Botaka were signed and once agreed that's it, so just unfortunate.
I thought I read on here it was agreed a day before they signed. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick but if it was then the club would have known they were coming and should have had the foresight to pass up on the TV game.
Yeah SKY confirmed the game on Aug 10th, whilst we signed Magennis on the 11th (Not sure when we signed Botaka)
Do they actually have any authority though? Fair enough Summoning her, but if they actually wanted to do something, what could they possibly do?
Exactly... they cant take Charlton Athletic away from these owners because who'd pay the wages for Players / Staff (down to those who man the ticket office) at the club.
I guess the only thing they could do is enforce Administration upon us that doesnt see us get a 10-point deduction which'll hopefully allows a new party to come in and takeover the club
On what grounds could they do that? They couldn't do anything like that, we haven't broken any rules.
Clutching at straws here, but what about the alleged issues around the Tony Watt transfer?
Not enough for administration, but it would be good if some light was shone upon Roland's dealings
Not to mention Duchatelet's third-party ownership of Michy Batshuayi
Supporters Direct are all over this. "Against League 3" are also wondering if this isn't unprecedented. Nicola Hudson of SD says that EFL will be at the meeting too. SD trying to get a rep in there for the meet too, but not over-hopeful.
The pressure is ramping up. I've got no doubt that our classy and creative protests have a lot to do with this unprecedented level of scrutiny.
I understand the cynicism, but I don't see how this can be anything other than positive.
As others have said, this is unprecedented. The FA will be fully aware of what they can and can't do, and have a history of trying to avoid getting involved in clubs' internal affairs. The fact that they have taken this action shows that they do care about the damage being done to the image of the game in this country, and are prepared to do what they can (even if it's not much). It will all add to the pressure.
I firmly believe that KM is all about boosting her CV in order to work her way up to higher positions within the game. If the FA make clear to her that they are not impressed with her efforts so far, and the damage to her reputation is irreparable, it might just be enough for her to throw in the towel. Who knows, Roland might just follow.
Do they actually have any authority though? Fair enough Summoning her, but if they actually wanted to do something, what could they possibly do?
Exactly... they cant take Charlton Athletic away from these owners because who'd pay the wages for Players / Staff (down to those who man the ticket office) at the club.
I guess the only thing they could do is enforce Administration upon us that doesnt see us get a 10-point deduction which'll hopefully allows a new party to come in and takeover the club
On what grounds could they do that? They couldn't do anything like that, we haven't broken any rules.
Clutching at straws here, but what about the alleged issues around the Tony Watt transfer?
Not enough for administration, but it would be good if some light was shone upon Roland's dealings
Not to mention Duchatelet's third-party ownership of Michy Batshuayi
Wonder if you are on to something?
Roland Duchatelet lis reported to have made C£9.9m from Michy Batshuayi's Chelsea move. The total transfer fee was €33 million.
In April 2015, FIFA announced the banning of third-party ownership, and specifically prohibited either clubs or players from entering into economic rights agreements with third-party investors.[2] The ban took effect on 1 May 2015. The European Parliament also announced a similar ban in European sports on 11 November 2015 following the passing of Rule 136 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. In a written declaration, the European Parliament states that third-party ownership raises concerns over the integrity of competitions and introduces risks of criminal activities into sports.
If that's not third-party ownership then what is? Why is a man who owns the economic rights of a footballer allowed to own an English football club by The FA? What's to say he hasn't tried to or even has existing agreements in place with some of our players or players that have played for us under his ownership? It would explain Tony Watt and I believe it's also something Diego Poyet alluded to when he left to join West Ham.
Magennis and Botaka signed the day after it was announced. The club (Meire/Slade/Parkes etc) knew we were in talks with both, and that we could potentially have an issue.
For the feeble amount of money offered, they should have rejected this particular TV appearance on the basis that our recruitment wasn't finished and we were looking to sign players who may be unavailable during International breaks.
Nothing to stop them from issuing a public censure of their mismanagement and dropping Meire from their committee. That would be embarrassing for the regime to say the least.
the FA are more likely to what to talk to her about crowd behaviour than any thing to do with ownership. Maybe will be forced to play in front of away fans only.
the FA are more likely to what to talk to her about crowd behaviour than any thing to do with ownership. Maybe will be forced to play in front of away fans only.
Result! No more even having to weigh up the decision of attending or not.
The pressure is ramping up. I've got no doubt that our classy and creative protests have a lot to do with this unprecedented level of scrutiny.
Agreed, and had the B20 directly confronted RD on Sat the coverage and fallout could have been very different, damaging and this may never have happened.
Progress against RD isn't constant, it's coming in fits and starts, but this feels like a win. Well done all.
Comments
But, if this is just a stand-alone, as far as I can tell, and as Prague says, this is unprecedented.
Not enough for administration, but it would be good if some light was shone upon Roland's dealings
That said, I don't see why, when they can switch games for TV purposes at three or four weeks notice, we could not have withdrawn with two months and 12 days notice? But that's by the by.
She'll spout the usual rubbish (CARD can wheel out the Katrien bingo again) about investing 38m, the training ground, a new pitch, no interested buyers etc etc and the FA will say 'ok then thanks for coming'.
Interesting that they've summoned her though. Why have they never summoned Oyston or the Coventry owners? Is it simply because our protests are far better and gaining more publicity?
One side is useless, has a head in the sand attitude and is only interested in creaming money off football. The FA is pretty much the same.
Bloody facts getting in the way of a good theory.
The pressure is ramping up. I've got no doubt that our classy and creative protests have a lot to do with this unprecedented level of scrutiny.
As others have said, this is unprecedented. The FA will be fully aware of what they can and can't do, and have a history of trying to avoid getting involved in clubs' internal affairs. The fact that they have taken this action shows that they do care about the damage being done to the image of the game in this country, and are prepared to do what they can (even if it's not much). It will all add to the pressure.
I firmly believe that KM is all about boosting her CV in order to work her way up to higher positions within the game. If the FA make clear to her that they are not impressed with her efforts so far, and the damage to her reputation is irreparable, it might just be enough for her to throw in the towel. Who knows, Roland might just follow.
Roland Duchatelet lis reported to have made C£9.9m from Michy Batshuayi's Chelsea move. The total transfer fee was €33 million.
In April 2015, FIFA announced the banning of third-party ownership, and specifically prohibited either clubs or players from entering into economic rights agreements with third-party investors.[2] The ban took effect on 1 May 2015. The European Parliament also announced a similar ban in European sports on 11 November 2015 following the passing of Rule 136 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. In a written declaration, the European Parliament states that third-party ownership raises concerns over the integrity of competitions and introduces risks of criminal activities into sports.
If that's not third-party ownership then what is? Why is a man who owns the economic rights of a footballer allowed to own an English football club by The FA? What's to say he hasn't tried to or even has existing agreements in place with some of our players or players that have played for us under his ownership? It would explain Tony Watt and I believe it's also something Diego Poyet alluded to when he left to join West Ham.
For the feeble amount of money offered, they should have rejected this particular TV appearance on the basis that our recruitment wasn't finished and we were looking to sign players who may be unavailable during International breaks.
Progress against RD isn't constant, it's coming in fits and starts, but this feels like a win. Well done all.