She was asked if there had been any work whatsoever on looking at alternative uses for any part of The Valley and her first words in response were something like 'nothing concrete' she then moved on to talk about the training ground and putting a roof on the concourse of the East Stand.
She was also asked whether there was ever a scenario she could see where the club was sold and ground retained by RD and her response was along the lines of 'that is not on the agenda so I won't answer'
Overall she looked nervous and not happy to be there (not really surprising as it was never going to be an easy audience).
I do think her salary is a non-issue, it's a private company and therefore up to them as to whether they release that information. Personally I would take the same stance as her in the situation and I found that line of questioning a little uncomfortable because of that, but that is just me!
Oh and as for Tony Keohone, (I think that is how it is spelt) he did not come across at all well to me, I really hope he does not have much influence or pay !
Her salary and terms of employment are definitely an issue. Her employment seems deliberately set up to conceal it. She is a director, but receives zero remuneration for that position. She is supposedly the CEO of Charlton but her salary doesn't appear anywhere in the company accounts. I can only assume she is a Staprix employee, sub-contracted to provide management services (badly!) to Charlton Athletic.
It is a pretty poor example of corporate governance when the only directors are the sole 100% shareholder, an employee entirely dependent on the patronage of the 100% shareholder and a desperate hanger-on waiting for a £4m pay-off. No accountability whatsoever.
She definitely 'said' she was employed by Charlton, and that her salary appears in the accounts (but lumped in with everyone else).
If she is paid by Charlton her salary must be within this figure, declared in the Baton accounts.
The question then is whether she can claim that being paid as chief executive is not being paid as a director. But if so why doesn't every chief executive do that?
She was asked if there had been any work whatsoever on looking at alternative uses for any part of The Valley and her first words in response were something like 'nothing concrete' she then moved on to talk about the training ground and putting a roof on the concourse of the East Stand.
She was also asked whether there was ever a scenario she could see where the club was sold and ground retained by RD and her response was along the lines of 'that is not on the agenda so I won't answer'
Overall she looked nervous and not happy to be there (not really surprising as it was never going to be an easy audience).
I do think her salary is a non-issue, it's a private company and therefore up to them as to whether they release that information. Personally I would take the same stance as her in the situation and I found that line of questioning a little uncomfortable because of that, but that is just me!
Oh and as for Tony Keohone, (I think that is how it is spelt) he did not come across at all well to me, I really hope he does not have much influence or pay !
Her salary and terms of employment are definitely an issue. Her employment seems deliberately set up to conceal it. She is a director, but receives zero remuneration for that position. She is supposedly the CEO of Charlton but her salary doesn't appear anywhere in the company accounts. I can only assume she is a Staprix employee, sub-contracted to provide management services (badly!) to Charlton Athletic.
It is a pretty poor example of corporate governance when the only directors are the sole 100% shareholder, an employee entirely dependent on the patronage of the 100% shareholder and a desperate hanger-on waiting for a £4m pay-off. No accountability whatsoever.
She definitely 'said' she was employed by Charlton, and that her salary appears in the accounts (but lumped in with everyone else).
If she is paid by Charlton here salary must be within this figure, declared in the Baton accounts.
The question then is whether she can claim that being paid as chief executive is not being paid as a director. But if so why doesn't every chief executive do that?
I'm assuming because most CEO's are not actual directors?
She was asked if there had been any work whatsoever on looking at alternative uses for any part of The Valley and her first words in response were something like 'nothing concrete' she then moved on to talk about the training ground and putting a roof on the concourse of the East Stand.
She was also asked whether there was ever a scenario she could see where the club was sold and ground retained by RD and her response was along the lines of 'that is not on the agenda so I won't answer'
Overall she looked nervous and not happy to be there (not really surprising as it was never going to be an easy audience).
I do think her salary is a non-issue, it's a private company and therefore up to them as to whether they release that information. Personally I would take the same stance as her in the situation and I found that line of questioning a little uncomfortable because of that, but that is just me!
Oh and as for Tony Keohone, (I think that is how it is spelt) he did not come across at all well to me, I really hope he does not have much influence or pay !
Her salary and terms of employment are definitely an issue. Her employment seems deliberately set up to conceal it. She is a director, but receives zero remuneration for that position. She is supposedly the CEO of Charlton but her salary doesn't appear anywhere in the company accounts. I can only assume she is a Staprix employee, sub-contracted to provide management services (badly!) to Charlton Athletic.
It is a pretty poor example of corporate governance when the only directors are the sole 100% shareholder, an employee entirely dependent on the patronage of the 100% shareholder and a desperate hanger-on waiting for a £4m pay-off. No accountability whatsoever.
She definitely 'said' she was employed by Charlton, and that her salary appears in the accounts (but lumped in with everyone else).
If she is paid by Charlton here salary must be within this figure, declared in the Baton accounts.
The question then is whether she can claim that being paid as chief executive is not being paid as a director. But if so why doesn't every chief executive do that?
I'm assuming because most CEO's are not actual directors?
Then the issue wouldn't arise as they would not be required to declare their remuneration under this provision.
She was asked if there had been any work whatsoever on looking at alternative uses for any part of The Valley and her first words in response were something like 'nothing concrete' she then moved on to talk about the training ground and putting a roof on the concourse of the East Stand.
She was also asked whether there was ever a scenario she could see where the club was sold and ground retained by RD and her response was along the lines of 'that is not on the agenda so I won't answer'
Overall she looked nervous and not happy to be there (not really surprising as it was never going to be an easy audience).
I do think her salary is a non-issue, it's a private company and therefore up to them as to whether they release that information. Personally I would take the same stance as her in the situation and I found that line of questioning a little uncomfortable because of that, but that is just me!
Oh and as for Tony Keohone, (I think that is how it is spelt) he did not come across at all well to me, I really hope he does not have much influence or pay !
Her salary and terms of employment are definitely an issue. Her employment seems deliberately set up to conceal it. She is a director, but receives zero remuneration for that position. She is supposedly the CEO of Charlton but her salary doesn't appear anywhere in the company accounts. I can only assume she is a Staprix employee, sub-contracted to provide management services (badly!) to Charlton Athletic.
It is a pretty poor example of corporate governance when the only directors are the sole 100% shareholder, an employee entirely dependent on the patronage of the 100% shareholder and a desperate hanger-on waiting for a £4m pay-off. No accountability whatsoever.
She definitely 'said' she was employed by Charlton, and that her salary appears in the accounts (but lumped in with everyone else).
Daisy says a lot of things, most of which don't stand up to serious scrutiny.
She was asked if there had been any work whatsoever on looking at alternative uses for any part of The Valley and her first words in response were something like 'nothing concrete' she then moved on to talk about the training ground and putting a roof on the concourse of the East Stand.
She was also asked whether there was ever a scenario she could see where the club was sold and ground retained by RD and her response was along the lines of 'that is not on the agenda so I won't answer'
Overall she looked nervous and not happy to be there (not really surprising as it was never going to be an easy audience).
I do think her salary is a non-issue, it's a private company and therefore up to them as to whether they release that information. Personally I would take the same stance as her in the situation and I found that line of questioning a little uncomfortable because of that, but that is just me!
Oh and as for Tony Keohone, (I think that is how it is spelt) he did not come across at all well to me, I really hope he does not have much influence or pay !
Her salary and terms of employment are definitely an issue. Her employment seems deliberately set up to conceal it. She is a director, but receives zero remuneration for that position. She is supposedly the CEO of Charlton but her salary doesn't appear anywhere in the company accounts. I can only assume she is a Staprix employee, sub-contracted to provide management services (badly!) to Charlton Athletic.
It is a pretty poor example of corporate governance when the only directors are the sole 100% shareholder, an employee entirely dependent on the patronage of the 100% shareholder and a desperate hanger-on waiting for a £4m pay-off. No accountability whatsoever.
She definitely 'said' she was employed by Charlton, and that her salary appears in the accounts (but lumped in with everyone else).
If she is paid by Charlton her salary must be within this figure, declared in the Baton accounts.
The question then is whether she can claim that being paid as chief executive is not being paid as a director. But if so why doesn't every chief executive do that?
I'd agree it's likely in that figure. I don't buy the doesn't have to declare as not paid as a director but as a CEO, she's still a director. I suspect it's more the under £200k figure, which on the assumption it is less than that I don't think they separately have to declare.
I'm not that concerned what she earns as any amount is too much, i'm more concerned how after such failure over a prolonged period she still remains in position.
She was asked if there had been any work whatsoever on looking at alternative uses for any part of The Valley and her first words in response were something like 'nothing concrete' she then moved on to talk about the training ground and putting a roof on the concourse of the East Stand.
She was also asked whether there was ever a scenario she could see where the club was sold and ground retained by RD and her response was along the lines of 'that is not on the agenda so I won't answer'
Overall she looked nervous and not happy to be there (not really surprising as it was never going to be an easy audience).
I do think her salary is a non-issue, it's a private company and therefore up to them as to whether they release that information. Personally I would take the same stance as her in the situation and I found that line of questioning a little uncomfortable because of that, but that is just me!
Oh and as for Tony Keohone, (I think that is how it is spelt) he did not come across at all well to me, I really hope he does not have much influence or pay !
Her salary and terms of employment are definitely an issue. Her employment seems deliberately set up to conceal it. She is a director, but receives zero remuneration for that position. She is supposedly the CEO of Charlton but her salary doesn't appear anywhere in the company accounts. I can only assume she is a Staprix employee, sub-contracted to provide management services (badly!) to Charlton Athletic.
It is a pretty poor example of corporate governance when the only directors are the sole 100% shareholder, an employee entirely dependent on the patronage of the 100% shareholder and a desperate hanger-on waiting for a £4m pay-off. No accountability whatsoever.
She definitely 'said' she was employed by Charlton, and that her salary appears in the accounts (but lumped in with everyone else).
If she is paid by Charlton her salary must be within this figure, declared in the Baton accounts.
The question then is whether she can claim that being paid as chief executive is not being paid as a director. But if so why doesn't every chief executive do that?
I'd agree it's likely in that figure. I don't buy the doesn't have to declare as not paid as a director but as a CEO, she's still a director. I suspect it's more the under £200k figure, which on the assumption it is less than that I don't think they separately have to declare.
I'm not that concerned what she earns as any amount is too much, i'm more concerned how after such failure over a prolonged period she still remains in position.
I don't agree because I still believe they have to declare the aggregate paid to directors and even if that isn't the case you can't declare nil unless you mean nil.
Nil doesn't mean exempt from disclosure. It means what it says.
She was asked if there had been any work whatsoever on looking at alternative uses for any part of The Valley and her first words in response were something like 'nothing concrete' she then moved on to talk about the training ground and putting a roof on the concourse of the East Stand.
She was also asked whether there was ever a scenario she could see where the club was sold and ground retained by RD and her response was along the lines of 'that is not on the agenda so I won't answer'
Overall she looked nervous and not happy to be there (not really surprising as it was never going to be an easy audience).
I do think her salary is a non-issue, it's a private company and therefore up to them as to whether they release that information. Personally I would take the same stance as her in the situation and I found that line of questioning a little uncomfortable because of that, but that is just me!
Oh and as for Tony Keohone, (I think that is how it is spelt) he did not come across at all well to me, I really hope he does not have much influence or pay !
Her salary and terms of employment are definitely an issue. Her employment seems deliberately set up to conceal it. She is a director, but receives zero remuneration for that position. She is supposedly the CEO of Charlton but her salary doesn't appear anywhere in the company accounts. I can only assume she is a Staprix employee, sub-contracted to provide management services (badly!) to Charlton Athletic.
It is a pretty poor example of corporate governance when the only directors are the sole 100% shareholder, an employee entirely dependent on the patronage of the 100% shareholder and a desperate hanger-on waiting for a £4m pay-off. No accountability whatsoever.
She definitely 'said' she was employed by Charlton, and that her salary appears in the accounts (but lumped in with everyone else).
If she is paid by Charlton her salary must be within this figure, declared in the Baton accounts.
The question then is whether she can claim that being paid as chief executive is not being paid as a director. But if so why doesn't every chief executive do that?
I'd agree it's likely in that figure. I don't buy the doesn't have to declare as not paid as a director but as a CEO, she's still a director. I suspect it's more the under £200k figure, which on the assumption it is less than that I don't think they separately have to declare.
I'm not that concerned what she earns as any amount is too much, i'm more concerned how after such failure over a prolonged period she still remains in position.
I don't agree because I still believe they have to declare the aggregate and even if that isn't the case you can't declare nil unless you mean nil.
Nil doesn't mean exempt from disclosure. It means what it says.
I didn't see the Nil line, in that case I'd agree, on the assumption she's employed by Baton.
She was asked if there had been any work whatsoever on looking at alternative uses for any part of The Valley and her first words in response were something like 'nothing concrete' she then moved on to talk about the training ground and putting a roof on the concourse of the East Stand.
She was also asked whether there was ever a scenario she could see where the club was sold and ground retained by RD and her response was along the lines of 'that is not on the agenda so I won't answer'
Overall she looked nervous and not happy to be there (not really surprising as it was never going to be an easy audience).
I do think her salary is a non-issue, it's a private company and therefore up to them as to whether they release that information. Personally I would take the same stance as her in the situation and I found that line of questioning a little uncomfortable because of that, but that is just me!
Oh and as for Tony Keohone, (I think that is how it is spelt) he did not come across at all well to me, I really hope he does not have much influence or pay !
Her salary and terms of employment are definitely an issue. Her employment seems deliberately set up to conceal it. She is a director, but receives zero remuneration for that position. She is supposedly the CEO of Charlton but her salary doesn't appear anywhere in the company accounts. I can only assume she is a Staprix employee, sub-contracted to provide management services (badly!) to Charlton Athletic.
It is a pretty poor example of corporate governance when the only directors are the sole 100% shareholder, an employee entirely dependent on the patronage of the 100% shareholder and a desperate hanger-on waiting for a £4m pay-off. No accountability whatsoever.
She definitely 'said' she was employed by Charlton, and that her salary appears in the accounts (but lumped in with everyone else).
If she is paid by Charlton her salary must be within this figure, declared in the Baton accounts.
The question then is whether she can claim that being paid as chief executive is not being paid as a director. But if so why doesn't every chief executive do that?
I'd agree it's likely in that figure. I don't buy the doesn't have to declare as not paid as a director but as a CEO, she's still a director. I suspect it's more the under £200k figure, which on the assumption it is less than that I don't think they separately have to declare.
I'm not that concerned what she earns as any amount is too much, i'm more concerned how after such failure over a prolonged period she still remains in position.
I don't agree because I still believe they have to declare the aggregate and even if that isn't the case you can't declare nil unless you mean nil.
Nil doesn't mean exempt from disclosure. It means what it says.
I didn't see the Nil line, in that case I'd agree, on the assumption she's employed by Baton.
Baton via CAFC Ltd. Apart from the extra interest "hidden" here, all Baton does is consolidate the CAFC Ltd and CAH Ltd accounts.
She was asked if there had been any work whatsoever on looking at alternative uses for any part of The Valley and her first words in response were something like 'nothing concrete' she then moved on to talk about the training ground and putting a roof on the concourse of the East Stand.
She was also asked whether there was ever a scenario she could see where the club was sold and ground retained by RD and her response was along the lines of 'that is not on the agenda so I won't answer'
Overall she looked nervous and not happy to be there (not really surprising as it was never going to be an easy audience).
I do think her salary is a non-issue, it's a private company and therefore up to them as to whether they release that information. Personally I would take the same stance as her in the situation and I found that line of questioning a little uncomfortable because of that, but that is just me!
Oh and as for Tony Keohone, (I think that is how it is spelt) he did not come across at all well to me, I really hope he does not have much influence or pay !
Her salary and terms of employment are definitely an issue. Her employment seems deliberately set up to conceal it. She is a director, but receives zero remuneration for that position. She is supposedly the CEO of Charlton but her salary doesn't appear anywhere in the company accounts. I can only assume she is a Staprix employee, sub-contracted to provide management services (badly!) to Charlton Athletic.
It is a pretty poor example of corporate governance when the only directors are the sole 100% shareholder, an employee entirely dependent on the patronage of the 100% shareholder and a desperate hanger-on waiting for a £4m pay-off. No accountability whatsoever.
She definitely 'said' she was employed by Charlton, and that her salary appears in the accounts (but lumped in with everyone else).
Daisy says a lot of things, most of which don't stand up to serious scrutiny.
As my old Gran used to say " Talks as her belly guides her ".
My understanding is that it is irrelevant if the earnings of the director are paid under an employment contract rather than for acting as a director. Given the accounts have to show payments to a third party or a company owned by director, which are not direct payments to the director (the purposes of referring to "qualifying services" in the Act), it hardly makes sense that you can avoid showing directors' remuneration by the simple expedient of saying they only get paid for being an employee and include their earnings under staff operating costs.
RD's other companies, including Melexis, also show nil directors' fees, it's his MO.
It's none of our business what Daisy gets paid, but the law says it is our business as customers to have access to details of aggregate directors earnings. It's necessary in order to judge remuneration with relative performance and assess value for money of the product and services of the company. Key executives are not directors and are not accountable for corporate decisions on strategy or policy, they are simply part of the disclosed overhead costs.
Suggest CAST write to the auditors for confirmation that
(i) the CAFC directors all work for no remuneration and (ii) have no contracts of employment with CAFC for which they are remunerated and (iii) have no contract with any other party which remunerates them for services given to CAFC as a director or employee. (iv) do not benefit from payments made to third parties in relation to director qualifying services
The reason is we are concerned that the accounts do not disclose to the major shareholder the poor value he is getting from his board. As he is very busy with other investments and hasn't visited the company's place of business in three years we are worried he hasn't got a clue what's going on and there aren't any directors running the company.
The reason we'd all like to know is 'what price failure?' Whatever it is, it's clearly too much based on performance. My bet is it would cause an outrage which is why she's desperate to keep it a secret.
My understanding is that it is irrelevant if the earnings of the director are paid under an employment contract rather than for acting as a director. Given the accounts have to show payments to a third party or a company owned by director, which are not direct payments to the director (the purposes of referring to "qualifying services" in the Act), it hardly makes sense that you can avoid showing directors' remuneration by the simple expedient of saying they only get paid for being an employee and include their earnings under staff operating costs.
RD's other companies, including Melexis, also show nil directors' fees, it's his MO.
It's none of our business what Daisy gets paid, but the law says it is our business as customers to have access to details of aggregate directors earnings. It's necessary in order to judge remuneration with relative performance and assess value for money of the product and services of the company. Key executives are not directors and are not accountable for corporate decisions on strategy or policy, they are simply part of the disclosed overhead costs.
Suggest CAST write to the auditors for confirmation that
(i) the CAFC directors all work for no remuneration and (ii) have no contracts of employment with CAFC for which they are remunerated and (iii) have no contract with any other party which remunerates them for services given to CAFC as a director or employee. (iv) do not benefit from payments made to third parties in relation to director qualifying services
The reason is we are concerned that the accounts do not disclose to the major shareholder the poor value he is getting from his board. As he is very busy with other investments and hasn't visited the company's place of business in three years we are worried he hasn't got a clue what's going on and there aren't any directors running the company.
Thanks, Dippenhall. On what basis would the auditors enter into correspondence with us, though?
Katrien is a Director, of 2 Charlton Athletic companies and Baton 2010 Ltd these are facts. If she receives remuneration of any kind, even if it is only non-cash benefits, from any of those companies that has to appear in the full accounts as "Directors' Remuneration". Whether her remuneration is for her role as "Director" or some other role(s) is entirely irrelevant. She is a director + she receives remuneration = directors remuneration. The companies, as subsidiaries of larger entities, do not have to disclose transactions between group entities. If KM receives her emoluments/salary/benefits at the cost of some foreign or non-group entity, there would be no obligation on those 3 UK companies to disclose it. If any of the 3 UK companies are charged by another entity for the services of KM (or any other Director), that ought to feature somewhere in the notes to the accounts. The companies' auditors, Nyman Libson Paul, should identify in their report to the accounts, any required disclosure not made in the accounts themselves. It may well be that KM's salary is paid by some other part of roly's empire, to which the UK charlton companies are not technically "connected". That being the case, uncovering the £sterling value of her 30 pieces of silver would be just about impossible, and not required disclosure of any of the UK entities. I can't navigate my way around Belgium's equivalent of Companies House website to interrogate Staprix NV's published financial statements, and know even less about Belgian corporate governance and disclosure requirements. If the squirrel faced lying incompotent isn't a director of Staprix I'm not sure we'd ever find out how opulently the septuagenarian shitforbrains is feathering her nest. Putting pounds and pence on her mendacity and blundering is only going to upset us even more isn't it? Her remaining in post is insult enough. Finding out how much she trousers while mugging off the customers will feel like punching myself in the balls. Best if we let this sleeping dog lie. all puns intended. We have more important battles to win on the road to Charlton Athletic's redemption.
Katrien is a Director, of 2 Charlton Athletic companies and Baton 2010 Ltd these are facts. If she receives remuneration of any kind, even if it is only non-cash benefits, from any of those companies that has to appear in the full accounts as "Directors' Remuneration". Whether her remuneration is for her role as "Director" or some other role(s) is entirely irrelevant. She is a director + she receives remuneration = directors remuneration. The companies, as subsidiaries of larger entities, do not have to disclose transactions between group entities. If KM receives her emoluments/salary/benefits at the cost of some foreign or non-group entity, there would be no obligation on those 3 UK companies to disclose it. If any of the 3 UK companies are charged by another entity for the services of KM (or any other Director), that ought to feature somewhere in the notes to the accounts. The companies' auditors, Nyman Libson Paul, should identify in their report to the accounts, any required disclosure not made in the accounts themselves. It may well be that KM's salary is paid by some other part of roly's empire, to which the UK charlton companies are not technically "connected". That being the case, uncovering the £sterling value of her 30 pieces of silver would be just about impossible, and not required disclosure of any of the UK entities. I can't navigate my way around Belgium's equivalent of Companies House website to interrogate Staprix NV's published financial statements, and know even less about Belgian corporate governance and disclosure requirements. If the squirrel faced lying incompotent isn't a director of Staprix I'm not sure we'd ever find out how opulently the septuagenarian shitforbrains is feathering her nest. Putting pounds and pence on her mendacity and blundering is only going to upset us even more isn't it? Her remaining in post is insult enough. Finding out how much she trousers while mugging off the customers will feel like punching myself in the balls. Best if we let this sleeping dog lie. all puns intended. We have more important battles to win on the road to Charlton Athletic's redemption.
Agree, we spend too much time agonising over and re-affirming her incompetence, but from CAST report for Sunday, saying she is an employee of the club (if true) is surely confusing. I assumed she was paid by say Staprix and was not an employee of the club in any capacity so avoiding disclosure.
Accept auditors will not engage regarding disclosure of a private company's information but if they audit a public statutory document they ought to explain how it is compliant if there is doubt arising as a result of a director's statement in public on the matter which seems to contradict the disclosures.
"If the squirrel faced lying incompotent isn't a director of Staprix I'm not sure we'd ever find out how opulently the septuagenarian shitforbrains is feathering her nest. Putting pounds and pence on her mendacity and blundering is only going to upset us even more isn't it? Her remaining in post is insult enough. Finding out how much she trousers while mugging off the customers will feel like punching myself in the balls".
If there is a prize for "best 4 sentences posted this year", then this is the winner IMO.
I suggest the Trust writes to David Joyes and asks him to clarify her comments, because it was their meeting and I think we have access to enough expertise collectively to know that what she is believed to have said to Trust members does not seem to be consistent with the law as an explanation.
It seems fair to give him an opportunity to comment.
I suggest the Trust writes to David Joyes and asks him to clarify her comments, because it was their meeting and I think we have access to enough expertise collectively to know that what she is believed to have said to Trust members does not seem to be consistent with the law as an explanation.
It seems fair to give him an opportunity to comment.
I just wish to add to other comments. Her tenure as CEO is so pathetic and negative the amount is irrelevant. No CEO would survive such failures. RD has no interest in the club otherwise she would be gone.
I just wish to add to other comments. Her tenure as CEO is so pathetic and negative the amount is irrelevant. No CEO would survive such failures. RD has no interest in the club otherwise she would be gone.
Apologies for my delay in my write up. Others have covered it well. I chose to follow up on this comment because it pretty much was my question. Must admit my emotion got the better of me and essentially my question to her was 'did she honestly believe that had this been any other job of similar standing, say managing partner of a law firm, md of a company, would she genuinely be still be in a job?'
Admittedly I led with the fact that it's been an utter shambles and however you try and look at it we're a mess. But she didn't answer me. She just sat there. I guess my initial diatribe could've been interpreted as a bit aggressive, but that's 3 years of frustration coming to fore.
Others put their questions and points across in a much more calm and measured way so I felt it was a good exercise on the whole. She pretty much walked out miffed so you could tell the session had been useful in that way.
Barney the ex CAST chair made a good point about the interest on the loan. She said the interest isn't being charged or paid back at the moment (I think, or something to that effect), trying to dismiss it as not relevant. If it's not relevant, then why the hell is it even there in the first place.
I felt she has a certain reposte for questions talking about her love for Charlton and learning from her mistakes, but I believe that if you could get the conversation into a more emotional, open space, you could try and make a bit of headway. By that I mean I don't think she could hold the 'learning from mistakes' line in front of true, authentic, open conversations over a longer period. I'm not questioning the authenticity of fans' questions, it's more the fact she has been able to rehearse responses to more standard questions and the time allowed.
Unfortunately it's all moot even if we able to open her up a bit, because she's the chief administrative/operational officer at our club. The real power sits a few 100 miles away, does what he wants and until you get him in a room and pick him apart, we'll never get the answers to our questions
I would also definitely be up for one next season because she boxed herself into a corner about how next season will be different. If we're in the same shit position next year then you can just refer back to what she said in the meeting
I would also definitely be up for one next season because she boxed herself into a corner about how next season will be different. If we're in the same shit position next year then you can just refer back to what she said in the meeting
But next season they will have learned from their mistakes again, I made the point before this season started that if somebody says they have learned from their mistakes, a good test is for them to tell us what the mistakes were. For me it has been the recurring inability to create a balanced squad - sometimes a nearly balanced squad missing only 2 to 3 players, but never being able to address or undertsand this basic principle - and it isn't about money. All I heard was the solution was to appoint an English manager, that I pointed out before he was appointed was negative in the extreme and had never won anything!
Having learned from their mistakes apparently at the start of the season, we played the first part of the season with the wrong midfield attributes -lack of balance. Then we addressed this to a degree in the winter window but sold our top and third highest scorers without bringing any goals into the side - lack of balance again. That has always been our greatest mistake - when you get loss of form and injuries, it is the sides you can put out. Because of the way the squad has been constructed, and how it is always constructed under these idiots, you have too many key games where we start them with one hand tied behind our back, without the attributes to have a decent chance of winning them. Or at least winning the numbers that we need too. Look back to all the seasons - it is always the same. The lack of balance may be in different areas, but it is always there. It has to be down to how the club recruits and how it determines what it needs!
I just wish to add to other comments. Her tenure as CEO is so pathetic and negative the amount is irrelevant. No CEO would survive such failures. RD has no interest in the club otherwise she would be gone.
Apologies for my delay in my write up. Others have covered it well. I chose to follow up on this comment because it pretty much was my question. Must admit my emotion got the better of me and essentially my question to her was 'did she honestly believe that had this been any other job of similar standing, say managing partner of a law firm, md of a company, would she genuinely be still be in a job?'
Admittedly I led with the fact that it's been an utter shambles and however you try and look at it we're a mess. But she didn't answer me. She just sat there. I guess my initial diatribe could've been interpreted as a bit aggressive, but that's 3 years of frustration coming to fore.
Others put their questions and points across in a much more calm and measured way so I felt it was a good exercise on the whole. She pretty much walked out miffed so you could tell the session had been useful in that way.
Barney the ex CAST chair made a good point about the interest on the loan. She said the interest isn't being charged or paid back at the moment (I think, or something to that effect), trying to dismiss it as not relevant. If it's not relevant, then why the hell is it even there in the first place.
I felt she has a certain reposte for questions talking about her love for Charlton and learning from her mistakes, but I believe that if you could get the conversation into a more emotional, open space, you could try and make a bit of headway. By that I mean I don't think she could hold the 'learning from mistakes' line in front of true, authentic, open conversations over a longer period. I'm not questioning the authenticity of fans' questions, it's more the fact she has been able to rehearse responses to more standard questions and the time allowed.
Unfortunately it's all moot even if we able to open her up a bit, because she's the chief administrative/operational officer at our club. The real power sits a few 100 miles away, does what he wants and until you get him in a room and pick him apart, we'll never get the answers to our questions
Whilst the above is undeniably true, it is Meire as CEO who is responsible for exercising that power on behalf of Duchatelet and it is she who must shoulder the burden of responsibility given that she claims to live and breath Charlton Athletic whilst Duchatelet by his own admission, condescends to spend only 1.5% of his time on the Club.
I have consistently been a critic of Meire (more so than Duchatelet) because, maybe naively, I expected more of her, more independence of thought, more drive, more sense of making her own mark. All this to act as a check and balance against Duchatelet's wild visions if she was acting in the best interests of the club.
Instead we get an insipid, sullen, unadventurous woman clearly in total thrall of Duchatelet, acting as nothing more than a cipher for RD and unable to defend her woeful record as CEO when challenged other than by eye-rolling and silence or by refuge in the ridiculous notion that she must be doing a good job because Roland hasn't sacked her.
Katrien Meire is a disgrace and it is shameful that her sinecure position has 'earned' her a place on the FA Council.
If Meire came out and said the mistake they have learned was the inability to create a balanced squad, I might find some optimism from somewhere. But she has never said it, despite it being the main issue. We have had some decent foreign managers - Peeters and Riga knew what they were doing. But they were sacked - or didn't have their contracts extended in the case of Riga. We have had a CEO, completely out of her depth, but her job has been completely secure! This has to tell you something!
Luzon wasn't a completely hopless manager. We started last season with a reasonably decent first eleven. By the time we got to Preston at home we were playing three inexperienced left backs in the starting line up. I saw the team sheet and wanted to go home! It was a comfortable defeat before a ball was kicked - and it was a 3-0 defeat when the final ball was kicked. Too many of these games - the season before -away to Fulham - putting out a team that had no chance. You can't win every game, but you can't put out sides as often as we have who have zero chance of winning, and get away with it!
I tried to make the point that fans were extremely concerned about the level of debt being many times what they paid for the club, and also reminded them the club sold previously for £1 in league one - KM seemed surprised at the latter.
I said it's all very well admitting mistakes (although I puzzled at the hiring decisions and management exprience - not sure she realised I meant her) and that making mistakes had a cost. The resulting debt (beyond normal losses) was being saddled on the club, effectively we are paying for those mistakes.
She waffled about Football finance, and countered that it didn't really matter - the friendly debt argument. I argued we should focus on our club not others. I asked why not write it off then? I compared it to negative equity.
I also quipped Roland would want his money back and that was why the debt and interest was there, and asked could she guarantee the Valley would not be separated from the club during their tenure. She retorted that was not up for discussion.
The meeting then immediately ended despite starting late, and she rapidly hit the exit and seemed to be very unhappy - don't know what others also sitting near the door like me think about her mood, but to me she looked gray in the face and mega pissed off after our exchange. Maybe she just dropped her smiley game face at the end of the meeting, or maybe I hit a nerve not really sure. Overall most of the questions were fairly hard hitting to the extent you felt a bit sorry for the lady.
I left feeling proud of our fans, but also sad that the huge positive energy of Charlton fans was now by necessity engaged in such negative meetings with the club.
I tried to make the point that fans were extremely concerned about the level of debt being many times what they paid for the club, and also reminded them the club sold previously for £1 in league one - KM seemed surprised at the latter.
I said it's all very well admitting mistakes (although I puzzled at the hiring decisions and management exprience - not sure she realised I meant her) and that making mistakes had a cost. The resulting debt (beyond normal losses) was being saddled on the club, effectively we are paying for those mistakes.
She waffled about Football finance, and countered that it didn't really matter - the friendly debt argument. I argued we should focus on our club not others. I asked why not write it off then? I compared it to negative equity.
I also quipped Roland would want his money back and that was why the debt and interest was there, and asked could she guarantee the Valley would not be separated from the club during their tenure. She retorted that was not up for discussion.
The meeting then immediately ended despite starting late, and she rapidly hit the exit and seemed to be very unhappy - don't know what others also sitting near the door like me think about her mood, but to me she looked gray in the face and mega pissed off after our exchange. Maybe she just dropped her smiley game face at the end of the meeting, or maybe I hit a nerve not really sure. Overall most of the questions were fairly hard hitting to the extent you felt a bit sorry for the lady.
I left feeling proud of our fans, but also sad that the huge positive energy of Charlton fans was now by necessity engaged in such negative meetings with the club.
I agree Razil in that she did look angry as she walked past us both. I think the good things about these sessions is that we all very quickly know what stock responses we get. We can change and adapt.
I left feeling proud of our fans, but also sad that the huge positive energy of Charlton fans was now by necessity engaged in such negative meetings with the club.
This was pretty much how I felt on Sunday at the protest. We have a great set of supporters and yet their energy passion and skills have had to be diverted away from support into a struggle with the ownership of the club. The stupidity, mismanagement and general incompetence of those running this football club is never more evident than this ridiculous failure to utilise and build its support base to move this club forward. That is the tragedy of it all. But it seems they simply do not want that support.
Comments
The question then is whether she can claim that being paid as chief executive is not being paid as a director. But if so why doesn't every chief executive do that?
Daisy says a lot of things, most of which don't stand up to serious scrutiny.
I'm not that concerned what she earns as any amount is too much, i'm more concerned how after such failure over a prolonged period she still remains in position.
Nil doesn't mean exempt from disclosure. It means what it says.
The nil line is in CAFC Ltd too.
Oh, maybe that's Sue P ?
RD's other companies, including Melexis, also show nil directors' fees, it's his MO.
It's none of our business what Daisy gets paid, but the law says it is our business as customers to have access to details of aggregate directors earnings. It's necessary in order to judge remuneration with relative performance and assess value for money of the product and services of the company. Key executives are not directors and are not accountable for corporate decisions on strategy or policy, they are simply part of the disclosed overhead costs.
Suggest CAST write to the auditors for confirmation that
(i) the CAFC directors all work for no remuneration and
(ii) have no contracts of employment with CAFC for which they are remunerated and
(iii) have no contract with any other party which remunerates them for services given to CAFC as a director or employee.
(iv) do not benefit from payments made to third parties in relation to director qualifying services
The reason is we are concerned that the accounts do not disclose to the major shareholder the poor value he is getting from his board. As he is very busy with other investments and hasn't visited the company's place of business in three years we are worried he hasn't got a clue what's going on and there aren't any directors running the company.
Accept auditors will not engage regarding disclosure of a private company's information but if they audit a public statutory document they ought to explain how it is compliant if there is doubt arising as a result of a director's statement in public on the matter which seems to contradict the disclosures.
If there is a prize for "best 4 sentences posted this year", then this is the winner IMO.
It seems fair to give him an opportunity to comment.
Admittedly I led with the fact that it's been an utter shambles and however you try and look at it we're a mess. But she didn't answer me. She just sat there. I guess my initial diatribe could've been interpreted as a bit aggressive, but that's 3 years of frustration coming to fore.
Others put their questions and points across in a much more calm and measured way so I felt it was a good exercise on the whole. She pretty much walked out miffed so you could tell the session had been useful in that way.
Barney the ex CAST chair made a good point about the interest on the loan. She said the interest isn't being charged or paid back at the moment (I think, or something to that effect), trying to dismiss it as not relevant. If it's not relevant, then why the hell is it even there in the first place.
I felt she has a certain reposte for questions talking about her love for Charlton and learning from her mistakes, but I believe that if you could get the conversation into a more emotional, open space, you could try and make a bit of headway. By that I mean I don't think she could hold the 'learning from mistakes' line in front of true, authentic, open conversations over a longer period. I'm not questioning the authenticity of fans' questions, it's more the fact she has been able to rehearse responses to more standard questions and the time allowed.
Unfortunately it's all moot even if we able to open her up a bit, because she's the chief administrative/operational officer at our club. The real power sits a few 100 miles away, does what he wants and until you get him in a room and pick him apart, we'll never get the answers to our questions
I know you loved her obsessively once, but I think you have to let that loving failure go mate
Surely there was no sign of a veil & bouquet too ?
Having learned from their mistakes apparently at the start of the season, we played the first part of the season with the wrong midfield attributes -lack of balance. Then we addressed this to a degree in the winter window but sold our top and third highest scorers without bringing any goals into the side - lack of balance again. That has always been our greatest mistake - when you get loss of form and injuries, it is the sides you can put out. Because of the way the squad has been constructed, and how it is always constructed under these idiots, you have too many key games where we start them with one hand tied behind our back, without the attributes to have a decent chance of winning them. Or at least winning the numbers that we need too. Look back to all the seasons - it is always the same. The lack of balance may be in different areas, but it is always there. It has to be down to how the club recruits and how it determines what it needs!
I have consistently been a critic of Meire (more so than Duchatelet) because, maybe naively, I expected more of her, more independence of thought, more drive, more sense of making her own mark. All this to act as a check and balance against Duchatelet's wild visions if she was acting in the best interests of the club.
Instead we get an insipid, sullen, unadventurous woman clearly in total thrall of Duchatelet, acting as nothing more than a cipher for RD and unable to defend her woeful record as CEO when challenged other than by eye-rolling and silence or by refuge in the ridiculous notion that she must be doing a good job because Roland hasn't sacked her.
Katrien Meire is a disgrace and it is shameful that her sinecure position has 'earned' her a place on the FA Council.
Luzon wasn't a completely hopless manager. We started last season with a reasonably decent first eleven. By the time we got to Preston at home we were playing three inexperienced left backs in the starting line up. I saw the team sheet and wanted to go home! It was a comfortable defeat before a ball was kicked - and it was a 3-0 defeat when the final ball was kicked. Too many of these games - the season before -away to Fulham - putting out a team that had no chance. You can't win every game, but you can't put out sides as often as we have who have zero chance of winning, and get away with it!
I said it's all very well admitting mistakes (although I puzzled at the hiring decisions and management exprience - not sure she realised I meant her) and that making mistakes had a cost. The resulting debt (beyond normal losses) was being saddled on the club, effectively we are paying for those mistakes.
She waffled about Football finance, and countered that it didn't really matter - the friendly debt argument. I argued we should focus on our club not others. I asked why not write it off then? I compared it to negative equity.
I also quipped Roland would want his money back and that was why the debt and interest was there, and asked could she guarantee the Valley would not be separated from the club during their tenure. She retorted that was not up for discussion.
The meeting then immediately ended despite starting late, and she rapidly hit the exit and seemed to be very unhappy - don't know what others also sitting near the door like me think about her mood, but to me she looked gray in the face and mega pissed off after our exchange. Maybe she just dropped her smiley game face at the end of the meeting, or maybe I hit a nerve not really sure. Overall most of the questions were fairly hard hitting to the extent you felt a bit sorry for the lady.
I left feeling proud of our fans, but also sad that the huge positive energy of Charlton fans was now by necessity engaged in such negative meetings with the club.
The stupidity, mismanagement and general incompetence of those running this football club is never more evident than this ridiculous failure to utilise and build its support base to move this club forward.
That is the tragedy of it all. But it seems they simply do not want that support.