The Mercury is no longer delivered to homes but is widely available at a number of designated pick-up points. One of these is The Long Pond public house in Westmount Road, Eltham.
I thought the Mercury was almost a dead duck with desk in the store room at the SLP, with a tiny distribution these days.
And I don't think it has 'called' for anything since the return to the Valley. Strange lead.
There’s an effort going on to revitalise the Mercury and re-establish its identity. A focus on Charlton is part of that. The sports section has been expanded and carried full match reports in the second half of the season. Obviously local papers are not what they were even ten years ago but they are trying, with very limited resources, to do a better job.
Take a look at the Bexley Times by way of comparison. It is absolutely pitiful.
Unfortunately, at many local papers picture captions are added to pages by subs who have no clue about the story.
Oh and as the sports editor of the Mercury for most of the period between 1992 and 1998, I find quite amusing the idea it stopped campaigning about Charlton in 1992!
I thought the Mercury was almost a dead duck with desk in the store room at the SLP, with a tiny distribution these days.
And I don't think it has 'called' for anything since the return to the Valley. Strange lead.
There’s an effort going on to revitalise the Mercury and re-establish its identity. A focus on Charlton is part of that. The sports section has been expanded and carried full match reports in the second half of the season. Obviously local papers are not what they were even ten years ago but they are trying, with very limited resources, to do a better job.
Take a look at the Bexley Times by way of comparison. It is absolutely pitiful.
Unfortunately, at many local papers picture captions are added to pages by subs who have no clue about the story.
Oh and as the sports editor of the Mercury for most of the period between 1992 and 1998, I find quite amusing the idea it stopped campaigning about Charlton in 1992!
Is Peter Cordwell part of the set up? I'd like to think so.
I thought the Mercury was almost a dead duck with desk in the store room at the SLP, with a tiny distribution these days.
And I don't think it has 'called' for anything since the return to the Valley. Strange lead.
There’s an effort going on to revitalise the Mercury and re-establish its identity. A focus on Charlton is part of that. The sports section has been expanded and carried full match reports in the second half of the season. Obviously local papers are not what they were even ten years ago but they are trying, with very limited resources, to do a better job.
Take a look at the Bexley Times by way of comparison. It is absolutely pitiful.
Unfortunately, at many local papers picture captions are added to pages by subs who have no clue about the story.
Oh and as the sports editor of the Mercury for most of the period between 1992 and 1998, I find quite amusing the idea it stopped campaigning about Charlton in 1992!
Is Peter Cordwell part of the set up? I'd like to think so.
Pete has been talking to them. He’s not directly involved.
My vote would go to Mrs FF........some knows and loves the club, and the double whammy would be the message it would send up to Sheffield.
Aw, thanks, T.C.E.
I'm very flattered and to see our Kat carted off in a strait jacket would make it all worthwhile.
But, my time has been & gone when I came a distant runner up to Sue Townsend many moons ago.
And at my advanced age, I'd be unlikely to stay awake for the duration of a Board meeting.
Someone who knows this club from top to bottom, its fans, its history, who has been closely involved in building the fan base before and who knows what glues it all together is what's needed at this crucial time in its latest incarnation.
I thought the Mercury was almost a dead duck with desk in the store room at the SLP, with a tiny distribution these days.
And I don't think it has 'called' for anything since the return to the Valley. Strange lead.
So glad I wasn't the only one to wonder that.
But, I completely agree. This must be seen as the objective for both us and for English football as a whole.
I don't see it as an objective at all. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a positive move, but I don't think its the be all and and all. What's far more important is to bar the uncaring and the incompetent from holding power. What's far more important is for clubs to routinely consult fans about the direction and operations of the club, and to recognise that without fans, clubs are nothing. Next to those, having a fan on the board looks like an easy piece of sloganeering that a failing local rag might engage in, to try and bolster their own position amongst supporters.
To be serious for a moment, and to speculate. If there was ever to be a fan on the board I suppose the new owners would cast around for a fan that could be said to be representative in some way. Maybe they would establish a constituency of season ticket holders from which a representative might emerge in some way. On the other hand, the largest most credible group of Charlton fans is the formally established Trust, with all it's perfections and imperfections.
To be serious for a moment, and to speculate. If there was ever to be a fan on the board I suppose the new owners would cast around for a fan that could be said to be representative in some way. Maybe they would establish a constituency of season ticket holders from which a representative might emerge in some way. On the other hand, the largest most credible group of Charlton fans is the formally established Trust, with all it's perfections and imperfections.
As things stand, I think the trust would be the most legitimate body to somehow provide fan representation
To be serious for a moment, and to speculate. If there was ever to be a fan on the board I suppose the new owners would cast around for a fan that could be said to be representative in some way. Maybe they would establish a constituency of season ticket holders from which a representative might emerge in some way. On the other hand, the largest most credible group of Charlton fans is the formally established Trust, with all it's perfections and imperfections.
As things stand, I think the trust would be the most legitimate body to somehow provide fan representation
I agree but no doubt that would attract its own criticism. I really think the culture of the club is more important than the mechanism. The fans’ forum has never been satisfactory, but partly because it was never allowed to be as recent owners were not really interested in fans’ views or input.
Calum Fraser, the young journalist who penned that piece, has shown considerable interest in the relationship between fans and the powers that be at the football club. Last month he produced a positive article about the visit to Sint-Truiden by members of ROT.
I seem to remember reading that last time round having a fan on the board became increasingly difficult due to disclosure of information etc. Also sorting elections and getting the interest in those became more difficult.
Is there any reason those practical problems wouldn't be there now?
In my view the best solution is a few people we can trust on the board - Paul Elliot and Peter Varney for example. Then alongside this an effective and meaningful working relationship with the trust. And a real working group of expert fans like the original Target 20k not Katriens farce version.
A fans' director is not in some way absolved from those responsibilities BUT how close would they be to the decision-makers and the money? Would they have any real influence? Much of it would be tedious. How much would you know about your fellow directors? What if it all goes pear-shaped and you're in post when liquidation looms?
If it was done properly with some decent training provided (and probably through the Trust) then it could work well. But it's a big if.
It's not just pitching up on match day, getting a comfy seat in the directors' box, free booze and vols-au-vent and spouting off on social media. If that's for you then you need to marry the Company Secretary instead.
To be serious for a moment, and to speculate. If there was ever to be a fan on the board I suppose the new owners would cast around for a fan that could be said to be representative in some way. Maybe they would establish a constituency of season ticket holders from which a representative might emerge in some way. On the other hand, the largest most credible group of Charlton fans is the formally established Trust, with all it's perfections and imperfections.
As things stand, I think the trust would be the most legitimate body to somehow provide fan representation
I agree but no doubt that would attract its own criticism. I really think the culture of the club is more important than the mechanism. The fans’ forum has never been satisfactory, but partly because it was never allowed to be as recent owners were not really interested in fans’ views or input.
Absolutely agree with you that the culture of the club is more important than the mechanism. However you have got to separate out discussions on the long term direction of the club from the match day and travel stuff. Both are important but a club owner or director will inevitably not want to sit through meetings involving long heated discussions about the merits of balti pies or real ale. Fans Forum should be part of the dialogue but not the main mechanism, IMO
I am sure the involvement of a Supporters Trust in the mechanism will attract criticism. The question is whether it is valid in principle or just driven by tedious personal animosity.
The general approach around the country is that if you join the ST you vote to get your rep. into the boardroom. And that rep has to report back to you regularly on what is really going on, and you discuss it with him/her. You have a voice. So the question might be whether the candidates should already be on the ST Board, or whether they could be any ST member, who then is co-opted onto the ST Board after they are elected. Don't see a rational problem with that myself.
Unfortunately there is a wider question. If a Supporter on the Board doesn't represent a share of the club's equity ownership, what actual power do they have? To my dismay it turned out that even at Swansea, where they still held 20%, it wasn't enough, and when the owners of the other 80% decided to sell, the Trust rep was in the dark until it was done. That is a serious flaw in the plan. The only way to stop that is for regulation, or ideally legislation, to exist which says that a football club is not just a business like any other, and that the supporters rep. has to be involved in all discussions re change of ownership. Big ask that, though.
I find it sad and bemusing that you can set up a company in this country, become a director with no qualifications or training whatsoever and trundle off and do business with members of the public.
You can't do that if you want to drive. Nor can you do it if you want to manage a football team (badges) or work in countless other professions. And perhaps, bizarrely in comparison, you can't become a company secretary of a public company without having relevant experience/qualifications. Yet any old tag, rag and bobtail gets to be director!
This lack of oversight makes the football world's "fit and proper tests" look positively leading edge by comparison.
The Companies Act 2006 (and that's only one of countless pieces of legislation a company director should be familiar with: Health & Safety, CDDA, etc, etc) alone runs to 47 Parts, 1,300 Sections plus 16 Schedules. The bit about Directors duties, etc features at Part 10 and runs through 9 Chapters and from section 154 through to 259.
I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want to get involved in this degree of complexity/liability - and how could you possibly do the job properly without such knowledge - on a voluntary basis.
Comments
Take a look at the Bexley Times by way of comparison. It is absolutely pitiful.
Unfortunately, at many local papers picture captions are added to pages by subs who have no clue about the story.
Oh and as the sports editor of the Mercury for most of the period between 1992 and 1998, I find quite amusing the idea it stopped campaigning about Charlton in 1992!
I'd like to think so.
Ooh buuurrrrrnnnnnnnn
I'm very flattered and to see our Kat carted off in a strait jacket would make it all worthwhile.
But, my time has been & gone when I came a distant runner up to Sue Townsend many moons ago.
And at my advanced age, I'd be unlikely to stay awake for the duration of a Board meeting.
Someone who knows this club from top to bottom, its fans, its history, who has been closely involved in building the fan base before and who knows what glues it all together is what's needed at this crucial time in its latest incarnation.
Do we know anyone who fits the bill ?
I don't see it as an objective at all. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a positive move, but I don't think its the be all and and all. What's far more important is to bar the uncaring and the incompetent from holding power. What's far more important is for clubs to routinely consult fans about the direction and operations of the club, and to recognise that without fans, clubs are nothing. Next to those, having a fan on the board looks like an easy piece of sloganeering that a failing local rag might engage in, to try and bolster their own position amongst supporters.
Maybe they would establish a constituency of season ticket holders from which a representative might emerge in some way. On the other hand, the largest most credible group of Charlton fans is the formally established Trust, with all it's perfections and imperfections.
https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/we-went-to-duchatelets-home-town-he-gave-us-a-tour-of-his-development/
Is there any reason those practical problems wouldn't be there now?
In my view the best solution is a few people we can trust on the board - Paul Elliot and Peter Varney for example. Then alongside this an effective and meaningful working relationship with the trust. And a real working group of expert fans like the original Target 20k not Katriens farce version.
A fans' director is not in some way absolved from those responsibilities BUT how close would they be to the decision-makers and the money? Would they have any real influence? Much of it would be tedious. How much would you know about your fellow directors? What if it all goes pear-shaped and you're in post when liquidation looms?
If it was done properly with some decent training provided (and probably through the Trust) then it could work well. But it's a big if.
It's not just pitching up on match day, getting a comfy seat in the directors' box, free booze and vols-au-vent and spouting off on social media. If that's for you then you need to marry the Company Secretary instead.
I am sure the involvement of a Supporters Trust in the mechanism will attract criticism. The question is whether it is valid in principle or just driven by tedious personal animosity.
The general approach around the country is that if you join the ST you vote to get your rep. into the boardroom. And that rep has to report back to you regularly on what is really going on, and you discuss it with him/her. You have a voice. So the question might be whether the candidates should already be on the ST Board, or whether they could be any ST member, who then is co-opted onto the ST Board after they are elected. Don't see a rational problem with that myself.
Unfortunately there is a wider question. If a Supporter on the Board doesn't represent a share of the club's equity ownership, what actual power do they have? To my dismay it turned out that even at Swansea, where they still held 20%, it wasn't enough, and when the owners of the other 80% decided to sell, the Trust rep was in the dark until it was done. That is a serious flaw in the plan. The only way to stop that is for regulation, or ideally legislation, to exist which says that a football club is not just a business like any other, and that the supporters rep. has to be involved in all discussions re change of ownership. Big ask that, though.
You can't do that if you want to drive. Nor can you do it if you want to manage a football team (badges) or work in countless other professions. And perhaps, bizarrely in comparison, you can't become a company secretary of a public company without having relevant experience/qualifications. Yet any old tag, rag and bobtail gets to be director!
This lack of oversight makes the football world's "fit and proper tests" look positively leading edge by comparison.
The Companies Act 2006 (and that's only one of countless pieces of legislation a company director should be familiar with: Health & Safety, CDDA, etc, etc) alone runs to 47 Parts, 1,300 Sections plus 16 Schedules. The bit about Directors duties, etc features at Part 10 and runs through 9 Chapters and from section 154 through to 259.
I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want to get involved in this degree of complexity/liability - and how could you possibly do the job properly without such knowledge - on a voluntary basis.