Those that go could perhaps should finally join the boycotters for one last push to end the disastrous period of Duchatalet and his team?
No. You come to the game and show investors what could be.
I am a CARD supporter and follow their direction. I think we that go are right and you are wrong and have let the team and Robbo down.
Happy for you all to make your own decision (I think calling it a sacrifice is pushing it), and look forward to when we can all be one again in just doing such a simple thing as supporting our team.
To take your argument to it's (il)logical collusion, let's all turn up at The Valley, fill every seat, get the place rocking. That will show RD how much we hate him for what he has done to our club, wont it!
Protests or boycott- you decide?
Thanks hoof. I have decided. I have taken an active involvement in all protests incl Belgium. No protests this season so no attendances from me.
I can understand that a boycott for some is a step too far; too much disruption to their social life. But to those I say dont hide behind a statement that attending games (and thus supporting the regime) is the correct strategy. Be honest, if only to yourself.
Your analysis is over simplistic - most Charlton fans want him out and nobody fully understands his logic. There is more than one strategy however difficult you find that to accept.
To state that if I attend games I support the regime is bollocks(in my opinion).
Anyway we'll never agree on this one.
I am a simplistic person, it helps to think clearly
“Step to far” you must be joking. Watching the crap since November has not been a walk in the park. Oh to be in front of the fire watching Sky sports with a cold one, and a pocket full of dosh as well.
Agree that attending matches isn't a sign of supporting the owner of the club.
I think Roland disagrees with you.
What makes me laugh on here is all those who seem to know what Roland thinks - are they spies?
I think the most likely scenario is Roland actually thinks very little and indeed very rarely of his 'customers' and whether they are or aren't turning up
Agree that attending matches isn't a sign of supporting the owner of the club.
I think Roland disagrees with you.
What makes me laugh on here is all those who seem to know what Roland thinks - are they spies?
Except,in this case, Roland has pretty said this.
He's never really made anything clear.....
Other than Yann Kermorgant is a disgusting person, Powell is a liar, Varney is a devious liar, all Charlton fans that disagree with him are disgruntled ex-employees, most Charlton fans understand and agree with what he is doing at Charlton, most positions in a football league team can be filled by 17year old youth team players, the best part of going to football is having a dance to appalling euro electro trash etc etc
Here's the rub. Even in my own family we see things differently. My poor brother still reports out of the goodness of his own heart so that some at least get to hear what's going on at the Valley ;-) I don't listen as I've said, not a penny more. It's exactly like the days in exile. You need some to still go, you need some to stay away. That's the only way things get done. It's when peeps do nothing that laziness sets in and you end up being the new MKDons. When Douchbag fecks off we can all get back together have a party and concentrate on hating Palarse again :-D
Here's the rub. Even in my own family we see things differently. My poor brother still reports out of the goodness of his own heart so that some at least get to hear what's going on at the Valley ;-) I don't listen as I've said, not a penny more. It's exactly like the days in exile. You need some to still go, you need some to stay away. That's the only way things get done. It's when peeps do nothing that laziness sets in and you end up being the new MKDons. When Douchbag fecks off we can all get back together have a party and concentrate on hating Palarse again :-D
As a reformed Millwall supporter, I'm not sure how should I take that ;-)
Anyway, my point, for what it's worth, is that like most very rich people, Roland hates failure. He was arrogant enough to believe that his superior intellect would be sufficient to start a new era in football, one where clubs could be run efficiently by vibrant (badly paid) young people with fresh ideas and no baggage (ie not interested in club's history).
Once he realised that his blueprint for soccer revolution wasn't working (through no fault of his own of course) he lost interest, and to avoid any accusations of failure now needs to sell for a small profit. 'Football wasn't ready for me' will be his cry, until his dying day.
As a reformed Millwall supporter, I'm not sure how should I take that ;-)
Anyway, my point, for what it's worth, is that like most very rich people, Roland hates failure. He was arrogant enough to believe that his superior intellect would be sufficient to start a new era in football, one where clubs could be run efficiently by vibrant (badly paid) young people with fresh ideas and no baggage (ie not interested in club's history).
Once he realised that his blueprint for soccer revolution wasn't working (through no fault of his own of course) he lost interest, and to avoid any accusations of failure now needs to sell for a small profit. 'Football wasn't ready for me' will be his cry, until his dying day.
??? The title of the thread is "Is it time for boycotters to return".
As a reformed Millwall supporter, I'm not sure how should I take that ;-)
Anyway, my point, for what it's worth, is that like most very rich people, Roland hates failure. He was arrogant enough to believe that his superior intellect would be sufficient to start a new era in football, one where clubs could be run efficiently by vibrant (badly paid) young people with fresh ideas and no baggage (ie not interested in club's history).
Once he realised that his blueprint for soccer revolution wasn't working (through no fault of his own of course) he lost interest, and to avoid any accusations of failure now needs to sell for a small profit. 'Football wasn't ready for me' will be his cry, until his dying day.
??? The title of the thread is "Is it time for boycotters to return".
Based on whether boycotting will affect Roland's decision to sell the club. I'm saying part of his decision is based on avoidance of failure. Just making a contribution to the debate if that's ok @PeterGage ?
As a reformed Millwall supporter, I'm not sure how should I take that ;-)
Anyway, my point, for what it's worth, is that like most very rich people, Roland hates failure. He was arrogant enough to believe that his superior intellect would be sufficient to start a new era in football, one where clubs could be run efficiently by vibrant (badly paid) young people with fresh ideas and no baggage (ie not interested in club's history).
Once he realised that his blueprint for soccer revolution wasn't working (through no fault of his own of course) he lost interest, and to avoid any accusations of failure now needs to sell for a small profit. 'Football wasn't ready for me' will be his cry, until his dying day.
??? The title of the thread is "Is it time for boycotters to return".
Based on whether boycotting will affect Roland's decision to sell the club. I'm saying part of his decision is based on avoidance of failure. Just making a contribution to the debate if that's ok @PeterGage ?
@JamesSeed - is it time for boycotters to return? Must be me, but I cant relate your response to the question. Yes or no?
As a reformed Millwall supporter, I'm not sure how should I take that ;-)
Anyway, my point, for what it's worth, is that like most very rich people, Roland hates failure. He was arrogant enough to believe that his superior intellect would be sufficient to start a new era in football, one where clubs could be run efficiently by vibrant (badly paid) young people with fresh ideas and no baggage (ie not interested in club's history).
Once he realised that his blueprint for soccer revolution wasn't working (through no fault of his own of course) he lost interest, and to avoid any accusations of failure now needs to sell for a small profit. 'Football wasn't ready for me' will be his cry, until his dying day.
??? The title of the thread is "Is it time for boycotters to return".
Based on whether boycotting will affect Roland's decision to sell the club. I'm saying part of his decision is based on avoidance of failure. Just making a contribution to the debate if that's ok @PeterGage ?
@JamesSeed - is it time for boycotters to return? Must be me, but I cant relate your response to the question. Yes or no?
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
Please don’t cheapen the word “hero”. Not going to a football match is not heroic.
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
Please don’t cheapen the word “hero”. Not going to a football match is not heroic.
What, I can't even even be a hero in a conversation with my imaginary grandchildren? Not even just for one day? Seems a bit harsh.
Still I admire your resolve to preserve the integrity of the word, so I won't do it again. I must say, I'm looking forward to seeing you challenge Cadbury, Playstation, Superdry, Bonnie Tyler, CBS, Bandai, John Lewis and the self proclaimed Hero Magazine. It seems to me that they are all using the word hero to describe things that are far more banal and unimportant than not going to football.
As a reformed Millwall supporter, I'm not sure how should I take that ;-)
Anyway, my point, for what it's worth, is that like most very rich people, Roland hates failure. He was arrogant enough to believe that his superior intellect would be sufficient to start a new era in football, one where clubs could be run efficiently by vibrant (badly paid) young people with fresh ideas and no baggage (ie not interested in club's history).
Once he realised that his blueprint for soccer revolution wasn't working (through no fault of his own of course) he lost interest, and to avoid any accusations of failure now needs to sell for a small profit. 'Football wasn't ready for me' will be his cry, until his dying day.
That has always been my problem with him. We all make mistakes, but we should try to avoid them and learn from them. He showed a tunnel vision and arrogance when it was clear early on that his experiment was not going to end well. He surrounded himself with people who didn't know any better and who licked his backside. It says everything about him.
What saddens me more than anything - as we will be rid of this fool soon enough I'm sure - is that if he had an open mind and was able to listen to people who might just know something, he had a fantastic opportunity when he took over the club. But the purchase was never based on identifying the potential of the club and understanding what the club was about, it was about finding an English piece to his experimental jigsaw.
One thing that I would say for him, is that his blueprint would not be ridiculous, and some of it would be a good thing, if football adopted some of the principles behind it. But it won't and never will, and the fact that he never got that makes me doubt his sanity.
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
This is the closest you'll ever get to being a hero mate!
I guess what makes this an interesting argument (up to a point that I suspect probably passed long ago for most lifers) is that we have no way of proving matters one way or another. Only Duchatelet is in a position to know the effects that boycotting has on his decision making and I even doubt whether someone as emotionally unintelligent as he seems could grasp the answer. Will boycotting help hurry the old goat along? Will it make His Holy Cantankerousness more likely to stay? Perhaps it will make absolutely no difference at all. My personal opinion is that the more people who boycott, the better the chances of seeing him off quickly. When my imaginary grandchildren ask me, 'what did you do in the war, granddad?' I will proudly tell them that I was a boycotter. I was not a quisling. I did not support the Vichy Valley. I refused to do anything to support the regime. My mantra was, 'not a penny more' and I lived by that mantra. Mine will be a heroes tale, and I will be one of the many heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice: We missed football to save a football club. Our football club!
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity. And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
There is so much in this post that I disagree with and so much that I find personally offensive that for my own blood pressure I'm not going to comment on any of it save as to say that in the ten years I've been reading Charlton Live I haven't read anything as offensive or arrogant or full of rubbish as this.
Grandad. “We went to war with the owner of our club”
Grandson. (Looking up in awe) “And what did you do in the war Grandad?”
Grandad picks up his pipe in his left hand, walks slowly to the fireplace, places his right hand on the mantelpiece and looks out into the distance with his chin in the air.
Comments
Even in my own family we see things differently.
My poor brother still reports out of the goodness of his own heart so that some at least get to hear what's going on at the Valley ;-)
I don't listen as I've said, not a penny more.
It's exactly like the days in exile.
You need some to still go, you need some to stay away. That's the only way things get done.
It's when peeps do nothing that laziness sets in and you end up being the new MKDons.
When Douchbag fecks off we can all get back together have a party and concentrate on hating Palarse again :-D
It's Millwall we need to concentrate on hating
: - )
Anyway, my point, for what it's worth, is that like most very rich people, Roland hates failure. He was arrogant enough to believe that his superior intellect would be sufficient to start a new era in football, one where clubs could be run efficiently by vibrant (badly paid) young people with fresh ideas and no baggage (ie not interested in club's history).
Once he realised that his blueprint for soccer revolution wasn't working (through no fault of his own of course) he lost interest, and to avoid any accusations of failure now needs to sell for a small profit. 'Football wasn't ready for me' will be his cry, until his dying day.
The vast majority of posts aren't saying 'yes' or 'no', but they are nonetheless contributing to the debate.
That's just the way it works here.
The reason for my confidence is this. Despite El Duche's wealth, he feels the pain of losing money far more than normal people. He may never be in a position to know what it is the queue up at a foodbank, but he feels an anguish as acute as anyone when he over-stretches his finances. This is a man so wealthy he could chose to wear any clothes he likes; the most stylish, the most comfortable, the most exclusive. Instead he chooses duck-taped shoes. He could drive the most luxurious cars imaginable. Instead he choses a worn out Volvo. On his rare visits to London, he could have a chauffeur driven ride at either end of a private jet ride. Instead he chooses the DLR. Why? Because he is a man for whom the sheer numbers of wealth of his wealth are far more important than enjoying the trappings of that wealth. The threat of losing money will never hurt him in his belly, his pain will be in his poor septuagenerian brain where making money is the one thing that he's got a reputation for being good at. His ability to make money is the thing that somehow makes him a Turingesque genius. Cut off his money supply and you hit him right where it hurts, in the self-esteem. If all of us had taken up economic sanctions, I am absolutely convinced we'd have seen him of ages ago.
Of course none of this is fact. It's a mix of hope, belief, hyperbole and second-hand impressions of a man I've never met. Take out the nonsense about imaginary grandchildren though, and it still seems to me to be a summary far more realistic than anything that those arguing for attendance ever say. It is an argument that, whilst unprovable, has sound logic and beautiful simplicity.
And even if it doesn't work there is this the self-righteous joy of knowing that he isn't wasting my money.
For these reasons, I think it's time to seriously ask the opposite question to the one in the thread title, is it time for the Valley faithful to stay away? I firmly believe that it is. If the funds stop, so will the old man. But I recognise that this is not provable, and I recognise that people have other considerations to take into account. I therefore don't think it's right to demand that people stay away. But I do think that it's perfectly fair to ask the question. And I think that it's quite fair to ask this question too: When your imaginary (or perhaps real) grandchildren ask you what you did in the war, will you be proud of the answer you give them?
Could happen.
No guarantees.
Wot a quote & statement that is & il be back in the stands with ya Stig when the Douchbag finally sells...not before...!!
Still I admire your resolve to preserve the integrity of the word, so I won't do it again. I must say, I'm looking forward to seeing you challenge Cadbury, Playstation, Superdry, Bonnie Tyler, CBS, Bandai, John Lewis and the self proclaimed Hero Magazine. It seems to me that they are all using the word hero to describe things that are far more banal and unimportant than not going to football.
What saddens me more than anything - as we will be rid of this fool soon enough I'm sure - is that if he had an open mind and was able to listen to people who might just know something, he had a fantastic opportunity when he took over the club. But the purchase was never based on identifying the potential of the club and understanding what the club was about, it was about finding an English piece to his experimental jigsaw.
One thing that I would say for him, is that his blueprint would not be ridiculous, and some of it would be a good thing, if football adopted some of the principles behind it. But it won't and never will, and the fact that he never got that makes me doubt his sanity.
This is the closest you'll ever get to being a hero mate!
Peter Cook. “I don’t like wars”
Interviewer. “Most people don’t “
Peter Cook. “Yes, but I wrote a letter”
Grandson. (Looking up in awe) “And what did you do in the war Grandad?”
Grandad picks up his pipe in his left hand, walks slowly to the fireplace, places his right hand on the mantelpiece and looks out into the distance with his chin in the air.
Grandad. “ Me? I stayed at home”.