Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Wiseman sounds like a knob head, is there anything he did 25 years ago that we can drag up ?
Flag away, it's a moronic thing to say the day before our first game.. it's not my problem you can't see that.
I agree with you, but no need to call someone you don't know anything about a "knob head".
I didnt say he was, I said he sounds like one. With everything else going on, I dont think that was needed.. like it or not he represented and given his status, so do his opinions.
It was a terrible thing to say because the clear insinuation is that because Bowyer has not apologised publicly for his actions that he is either not sorry for what he did or that he still holds racist views.
The CAST bloke has no way of knowing if either of those things are true so should be keeping his comments to himself.
He then doubles down by saying he'd prefer a manager like Chris Powell, again clearly setting a white alleged racist in Bowyer against a sainted, universally respected black man.
Seems to me to be a classic case of virtue-signalling which would be fine on his own time but not when he is talking with his CAST hat on.
I was appalled at what Bowyer did all the way back then but it's twenty years ago and there is absolutely no reason to bring it up in the public domain now apart from gratuitous attention seeking.
Charlton managers are constantly compared to Chris Powell in one way or another. I don't agree with what was said in the context, but if we're going to blame people for comparing a Charlton manager to Chris Powell as a non sequitur, then we're going to need to look at pretty much everyone on this board, myself included.
No, we don't, different people are, quite rightly, held to different standards.
So I definitely agree that different people should be held to different standards. But I think criticizing him for saying he wishes Chris Powell was the manager is over the top. On the Bowyer stuff, as I said, yeah fair enough. But with the Powell thing, I'd guess that most of us feel that way. Saying he wishes Chris Powell was our manager is literally the least controversial thing he could say apart from maybe "we play in red." But even then, we'll be playing in yellow on Saturday.
It was the context. I'd rather have Messi than Lyle Taylor but if I was representing the Supporters in an interview and was asked about Taylor I'd be wishing him all the best in what could be a difficult season and talking him up not saying I'd rather have another player.
Fair enough. But to go from that to "Virtue Signalling" is a leap is the point I was trying to make.
No you weren't, you were saying that it didn't matter that the head of our Supporters' Trust undermined our current manager by saying he would prefer someone else.
No I wasn't, I was saying that bringing up Chris Powell in relation to the Charlton managerial position is not uncommon and not virtue signalling.
Virtue signalling is a meaningless term and irrelevant here.
There was no reason to mention Seed, Curbishley or Powell.
I disagree with what Richard said for more or less all of the reasons expressed on here. He has faced up and responded, satisfactorily or not, at least when he was in a hole he stopped digging, an example I, and many others on Charlton Life would do well to follow. If Lee Bowyer can rightly be cut some slack for things he has said and done, then maybe the same ought to be extended to Richard.
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Exactly, why use the word “we” when asked about famous supporters, clearly an indication that he thought he was speaking on behalf of the trust and its members
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Not really. RW will get asked to do these things because he is someone opposition websites can identify. He is asked because he is chair of the trust, but it’s ridiculous to argue that all his opinions must represent the view of trust members or even the trust board. I’m not even sure the trust would have any business having an opinion who should be manager.
He’s a volunteer not the Prime Minister. If people feel strongly he should not be chair of the trust, have a preferred candidate willing to stand, and are members they can go to the AGM and vote him out. That’s how it works. Otherwise you have no say, however much noise is made on social media or message boards.
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Not really. RW will get asked to do these things because he is someone opposition websites can identify. He is asked because he is chair of the trust, but it’s ridiculous to argue that all his opinions must represent the view of trust members or even the trust board. I’m not even sure the trust would have any business having an opinion who should be manager.
He’s a volunteer not the Prime Minister. If people feel strongly he should not be chair of he trust, have a preferred candidate willing to stand, and are members they can go to the AGM and vote him out. That’s how it works. Otherwise you have no say, however much noise is made on social media or message boards.
Make you wrong on this Airman. So do most of the other posts on here. All made by Charlton Supoorters and many Trust members.
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Not really. RW will get asked to do these things because he is someone opposition websites can identify. He is asked because he is chair of the trust, but it’s ridiculous to argue that all his opinions must represent the view of trust members or even the trust board. I’m not even sure the trust would have any business having an opinion who should be manager.
He’s a volunteer not the Prime Minister. If people feel strongly he should not be chair of he trust, have a preferred candidate willing to stand, and are members they can go to the AGM and vote him out. That’s how it works. Otherwise you have no say, however much noise is made on social media or message boards.
Make you wrong on this Airman. So do most of the other posts on here. All made by Charlton Supoorters and many Trust members.
Sorry, how do you or anyone else have any say in who is chair of the trust other than by voting at the AGM? I get these opposition requests all the time - you can’t consult on the answers, you speak for yourself.
Is there anyone who actually knows Richard who thinks he should resign or is this just the view of people who don’t know him and wish to judge him on limited evidence - which is exactly what they are complaining about in the first place.
I have a lot of time for Richard and like him as a person - I'm actually the Returning Officer for the Trust elections this year at his request, as my membership has lapsed.
But he's definitely said the wrong thing here, and it's a shame that people are therefore going to tie this one comment to both the man and the Trust as a whole (which is also the wrong thing to do imo).
I have no idea what would have prompted him to say that and at the risk of sounding condescending, I thought he would have known better...
Since its inception, has there beena single contested election for a trust position?
I'm no expert on the number of candidates (or not) for given positions within the trust but to hold an election you need two or more.
Lack of elections may well be a function of member apathy rather than committee protectionism.
Maybe the more relevant questions are to ask firstly whether or not anyone outside of the Committee who has expressed an interest to serve has been summarily turned down or secondly, since the implication is one of 'cliqueiness', (is there such a word) have any Committee members been drummed out for not toeing the party line?
It was a terrible thing to say because the clear insinuation is that because Bowyer has not apologised publicly for his actions that he is either not sorry for what he did or that he still holds racist views.
The CAST bloke has no way of knowing if either of those things are true so should be keeping his comments to himself.
He then doubles down by saying he'd prefer a manager like Chris Powell, again clearly setting a white alleged racist in Bowyer against a sainted, universally respected black man.
Seems to me to be a classic case of virtue-signalling which would be fine on his own time but not when he is talking with his CAST hat on.
I was appalled at what Bowyer did all the way back then but it's twenty years ago and there is absolutely no reason to bring it up in the public domain now apart from gratuitous attention seeking.
Charlton managers are constantly compared to Chris Powell in one way or another. I don't agree with what was said in the context, but if we're going to blame people for comparing a Charlton manager to Chris Powell as a non sequitur, then we're going to need to look at pretty much everyone on this board, myself included.
No, we don't, different people are, quite rightly, held to different standards.
So I definitely agree that different people should be held to different standards. But I think criticizing him for saying he wishes Chris Powell was the manager is over the top. On the Bowyer stuff, as I said, yeah fair enough. But with the Powell thing, I'd guess that most of us feel that way. Saying he wishes Chris Powell was our manager is literally the least controversial thing he could say apart from maybe "we play in red." But even then, we'll be playing in yellow on Saturday.
It was the context. I'd rather have Messi than Lyle Taylor but if I was representing the Supporters in an interview and was asked about Taylor I'd be wishing him all the best in what could be a difficult season and talking him up not saying I'd rather have another player.
Fair enough. But to go from that to "Virtue Signalling" is a leap is the point I was trying to make.
No you weren't, you were saying that it didn't matter that the head of our Supporters' Trust undermined our current manager by saying he would prefer someone else.
No I wasn't, I was saying that bringing up Chris Powell in relation to the Charlton managerial position is not uncommon and not virtue signalling.
Virtue signalling is a meaningless term and irrelevant here.
There was no reason to mention Seed, Curbishley or Powell.
I have known Richard for about 10 years and have had the pleasure of his company multiple times when going to away games along with others. I have the utmost respect for him and you will be very hard pushed to find someone who is more polite, well-mannered and nice.
Yes the answers could have been better and again he has apologised profusely. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but there is no way he should resign over this in my opinion.
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Not really. RW will get asked to do these things because he is someone opposition websites can identify. He is asked because he is chair of the trust, but it’s ridiculous to argue that all his opinions must represent the view of trust members or even the trust board. I’m not even sure the trust would have any business having an opinion who should be manager.
He’s a volunteer not the Prime Minister. If people feel strongly he should not be chair of the trust, have a preferred candidate willing to stand, and are members they can go to the AGM and vote him out. That’s how it works. Otherwise you have no say, however much noise is made on social media or message boards.
And Airman hits the hustings for his new position as Chair of CAST...
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Not really. RW will get asked to do these things because he is someone opposition websites can identify. He is asked because he is chair of the trust, but it’s ridiculous to argue that all his opinions must represent the view of trust members or even the trust board. I’m not even sure the trust would have any business having an opinion who should be manager.
He’s a volunteer not the Prime Minister. If people feel strongly he should not be chair of he trust, have a preferred candidate willing to stand, and are members they can go to the AGM and vote him out. That’s how it works. Otherwise you have no say, however much noise is made on social media or message boards.
Make you wrong on this Airman. So do most of the other posts on here. All made by Charlton Supoorters and many Trust members.
Sorry, how do you or anyone else have any say in who is chair of the trust other than by voting at the AGM? I get these opposition requests all the time - you can’t consult on the answers, you speak for yourself.
Is there anyone who actually knows Richard who thinks he should resign or is this just the view of people who don’t know him and wish to judge him on limited evidence - which is exactly what they are complaining about in the first place.
This is I am afraid laughable.
As a trust member I do have concerns when the Trust Board Chairman makes a statement that is patently unhelpful at best and downright inflammatory at worst. He is of course entitled to his opinion but when he speaks like it or not it will be associated to his position as Trust Chair. As for not having any say other than voting at the AGM. I can vote with the cancellation of my membership.
For you information I do know Richard and as has been said numerous times on this thread including by me he is a gentleman and committed Charlton supporter. I do not want Richard to resign.
Limited evidence ? based upon an interview that has been roundly condemned by pretty much anyone that read it.
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Not really. RW will get asked to do these things because he is someone opposition websites can identify. He is asked because he is chair of the trust, but it’s ridiculous to argue that all his opinions must represent the view of trust members or even the trust board. I’m not even sure the trust would have any business having an opinion who should be manager.
He’s a volunteer not the Prime Minister. If people feel strongly he should not be chair of the trust, have a preferred candidate willing to stand, and are members they can go to the AGM and vote him out. That’s how it works. Otherwise you have no say, however much noise is made on social media or message boards.
And Airman hits the hustings for his new position as Chair of CAST...
That’s the serious point though - who wants to do it? I certainly don’t and the instant vilification anyone making a mistake attracts won’t help encourage people.
wouldn't be surprised if Sky and possibly the press aren't already planning to ask Bowyers thoughts on this tomorrow. (if of course they read the forums) which will be a shame as this could unfortunately become a complete distraction from what the real issues are with the club.
He has done Bowyer a favour, as an ex-Newcastle player, he was going to get some stick anyway, but now all the younger fans that knew nothing about his past, they have got more ammunition, and I hate to think of some of the things they will shout. Nice of you to inform them Mr Wiseman
That’s the serious point though - who wants to do it? I certainly don’t and the instant vilification anyone making a mistake attracts won’t help encourage people.
Come on, it was not a mistake. He didn't mistakenly say it. They are his views.
If the comment had been of a right wing nature (i.e. if RW was of a different political persuasion and had said for example that "we always wanted LB at this club because of his actions back at Leeds for which he should never need to apologise" he'd already be gone.
Not that i'm saying he should go, but you get the point.
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Not really. RW will get asked to do these things because he is someone opposition websites can identify. He is asked because he is chair of the trust, but it’s ridiculous to argue that all his opinions must represent the view of trust members or even the trust board. I’m not even sure the trust would have any business having an opinion who should be manager.
He’s a volunteer not the Prime Minister. If people feel strongly he should not be chair of he trust, have a preferred candidate willing to stand, and are members they can go to the AGM and vote him out. That’s how it works. Otherwise you have no say, however much noise is made on social media or message boards.
Make you wrong on this Airman. So do most of the other posts on here. All made by Charlton Supoorters and many Trust members.
Sorry, how do you or anyone else have any say in who is chair of the trust other than by voting at the AGM? I get these opposition requests all the time - you can’t consult on the answers, you speak for yourself.
Is there anyone who actually knows Richard who thinks he should resign or is this just the view of people who don’t know him and wish to judge him on limited evidence - which is exactly what they are complaining about in the first place.
This is I am afraid laughable.
As a trust member I do have concerns when the Trust Board Chairman makes a statement that is patently unhelpful at best and downright inflammatory at worst. He is of course entitled to his opinion but when he speaks like it or not it will be associated to his position as Trust Chair. As for not having any say other than voting at the AGM. I can vote with the cancellation of my membership.
For you information I do know Richard and as has been said numerous times on this thread including by me he is a gentleman and committed Charlton supporter. I do not want Richard to resign.
Limited evidence ? based upon an interview that has been roundly condemned by pretty much anyone that read it.
It's the overreaction of people saying he should resign or chucking insults around that I am addressing and which is laughable. The guy made a mistake and has apologised for it, but the reaction is disproportionate. Opinions are cheap, actually doing the day-to-day work of running something like the trust is much harder. I know because I was secretary of CASC for seven years. Anyone who imagines people do that for ego is seriously deluded.
You and anyone else can withhold your fiver, but out in the real world nobody will notice - including Lee Bowyer - and the trust will continue regardless, run by people most on here couldn't pick out in an identity parade. It will elect its chair at the AGM and most members won't bother to attend, not least because they will have long forgotten about this.
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Not really. RW will get asked to do these things because he is someone opposition websites can identify. He is asked because he is chair of the trust, but it’s ridiculous to argue that all his opinions must represent the view of trust members or even the trust board. I’m not even sure the trust would have any business having an opinion who should be manager.
He’s a volunteer not the Prime Minister. If people feel strongly he should not be chair of he trust, have a preferred candidate willing to stand, and are members they can go to the AGM and vote him out. That’s how it works. Otherwise you have no say, however much noise is made on social media or message boards.
Make you wrong on this Airman. So do most of the other posts on here. All made by Charlton Supoorters and many Trust members.
Sorry, how do you or anyone else have any say in who is chair of the trust other than by voting at the AGM? I get these opposition requests all the time - you can’t consult on the answers, you speak for yourself.
Is there anyone who actually knows Richard who thinks he should resign or is this just the view of people who don’t know him and wish to judge him on limited evidence - which is exactly what they are complaining about in the first place.
This is I am afraid laughable.
As a trust member I do have concerns when the Trust Board Chairman makes a statement that is patently unhelpful at best and downright inflammatory at worst. He is of course entitled to his opinion but when he speaks like it or not it will be associated to his position as Trust Chair. As for not having any say other than voting at the AGM. I can vote with the cancellation of my membership.
For you information I do know Richard and as has been said numerous times on this thread including by me he is a gentleman and committed Charlton supporter. I do not want Richard to resign.
Limited evidence ? based upon an interview that has been roundly condemned by pretty much anyone that read it.
It's the overreaction of people saying he should resign or chucking insults around that I am addressing and which is laughable. The guy made a mistake and has apologised for it, but the reaction is disproportionate. Opinions are cheap, actually doing the day-to-day work of running something like the trust is much harder. I know because I was secretary of CASC for seven years. Anyone who imagines people do that for ego is seriously deluded.
You and anyone else can withhold your fiver, but out in the real world nobody will notice - including Lee Bowyer - and the trust will continue regardless, run by people most on here couldn't pick out in an identity parade. It will elect its chair at the AGM and most members won't bother to attend, not least because they will have long forgotten about this.
Well that makes it alright then.
I think you are bringing Council Chamber deflection and denial tactics to the table. Being Teflon in politics works well I admit.
That’s the serious point though - who wants to do it? I certainly don’t and the instant vilification anyone making a mistake attracts won’t help encourage people.
Come on, it was not a mistake. He didn't mistakenly say it. They are his views.
If the comment had been of a right wing nature (i.e. if RW was of a different political persuasion and had said for example that "we always wanted LB at this club because of his actions back at Leeds for which he should never need to apologise" he'd already be gone.
Not that i'm saying he should go, but you get the point.
Probably because concern about racism, however well grounded in this case, is legitimate and support for it isn't. There is no equivalence between being pro- and anti-racist.
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Not really. RW will get asked to do these things because he is someone opposition websites can identify. He is asked because he is chair of the trust, but it’s ridiculous to argue that all his opinions must represent the view of trust members or even the trust board. I’m not even sure the trust would have any business having an opinion who should be manager.
He’s a volunteer not the Prime Minister. If people feel strongly he should not be chair of he trust, have a preferred candidate willing to stand, and are members they can go to the AGM and vote him out. That’s how it works. Otherwise you have no say, however much noise is made on social media or message boards.
Make you wrong on this Airman. So do most of the other posts on here. All made by Charlton Supoorters and many Trust members.
Sorry, how do you or anyone else have any say in who is chair of the trust other than by voting at the AGM? I get these opposition requests all the time - you can’t consult on the answers, you speak for yourself.
Is there anyone who actually knows Richard who thinks he should resign or is this just the view of people who don’t know him and wish to judge him on limited evidence - which is exactly what they are complaining about in the first place.
This is I am afraid laughable.
As a trust member I do have concerns when the Trust Board Chairman makes a statement that is patently unhelpful at best and downright inflammatory at worst. He is of course entitled to his opinion but when he speaks like it or not it will be associated to his position as Trust Chair. As for not having any say other than voting at the AGM. I can vote with the cancellation of my membership.
For you information I do know Richard and as has been said numerous times on this thread including by me he is a gentleman and committed Charlton supporter. I do not want Richard to resign.
Limited evidence ? based upon an interview that has been roundly condemned by pretty much anyone that read it.
It's the overreaction of people saying he should resign or chucking insults around that I am addressing and which is laughable. The guy made a mistake and has apologised for it, but the reaction is disproportionate. Opinions are cheap, actually doing the day-to-day work of running something like the trust is much harder. I know because I was secretary of CASC for seven years. Anyone who imagines people do that for ego is seriously deluded.
You and anyone else can withhold your fiver, but out in the real world nobody will notice - including Lee Bowyer - and the trust will continue regardless, run by people most on here couldn't pick out in an identity parade. It will elect its chair at the AGM and most members won't bother to attend, not least because they will have long forgotten about this.
actually, you responded to my post
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis?
The question was not:
Is Lee Bowyer the right man for the job on a permanent basis (in the opinion of the members of the Charlton Athletic Supporters' Trust)?
Looking at RWs reply he appears to make it clear that the views expressed are his own. I don't read this reply as being voiced on behalf of CAST. Indeed, how could it?
There will be those in the CAST membership who might agree with these sentiments and those who don't but the reaction of some, voiced on this thread appears extreme to say the least.
At the top of Page 3 RW (Pico) has provided a response which has recognised that the LB of today would make different decisions/actions from those of his youth and he accepts that his comments were unnecessarily judgemental. He goes on to re-affirm that nothing of what he said was as a representative of CAST - the interview was not set up in that way.
That really should be enough shouldn't it? It is worth reflecting also that as an individual RW has been at the forefront of opposition to Duchatlet - leading the coffin march at The Valley, and having been heavily involved and in attendance at the Taxi for Roland event and the march through Sint Truiden.
Is it not time to draw a line under this one - nothing to be gained from beating ourselves up further IMO.
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Not really. RW will get asked to do these things because he is someone opposition websites can identify. He is asked because he is chair of the trust, but it’s ridiculous to argue that all his opinions must represent the view of trust members or even the trust board. I’m not even sure the trust would have any business having an opinion who should be manager.
He’s a volunteer not the Prime Minister. If people feel strongly he should not be chair of he trust, have a preferred candidate willing to stand, and are members they can go to the AGM and vote him out. That’s how it works. Otherwise you have no say, however much noise is made on social media or message boards.
Make you wrong on this Airman. So do most of the other posts on here. All made by Charlton Supoorters and many Trust members.
Sorry, how do you or anyone else have any say in who is chair of the trust other than by voting at the AGM? I get these opposition requests all the time - you can’t consult on the answers, you speak for yourself.
Is there anyone who actually knows Richard who thinks he should resign or is this just the view of people who don’t know him and wish to judge him on limited evidence - which is exactly what they are complaining about in the first place.
This is I am afraid laughable.
As a trust member I do have concerns when the Trust Board Chairman makes a statement that is patently unhelpful at best and downright inflammatory at worst. He is of course entitled to his opinion but when he speaks like it or not it will be associated to his position as Trust Chair. As for not having any say other than voting at the AGM. I can vote with the cancellation of my membership.
For you information I do know Richard and as has been said numerous times on this thread including by me he is a gentleman and committed Charlton supporter. I do not want Richard to resign.
Limited evidence ? based upon an interview that has been roundly condemned by pretty much anyone that read it.
It's the overreaction of people saying he should resign or chucking insults around that I am addressing and which is laughable. The guy made a mistake and has apologised for it, but the reaction is disproportionate. Opinions are cheap, actually doing the day-to-day work of running something like the trust is much harder. I know because I was secretary of CASC for seven years. Anyone who imagines people do that for ego is seriously deluded.
You and anyone else can withhold your fiver, but out in the real world nobody will notice - including Lee Bowyer - and the trust will continue regardless, run by people most on here couldn't pick out in an identity parade. It will elect its chair at the AGM and most members won't bother to attend, not least because they will have long forgotten about this.
actually, you responded to my post
But being the head of the supporters trust was the reason he was doing it and not some random fan.
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
Yes, and I replied to the point you made above, which I don't agree with, but I've made a series of posts since in reply to others.
Fair enough. But to go from that to "Virtue Signalling" is a leap is the point I was trying to make.
No you weren't, you were saying that it didn't matter that the head of our Supporters' Trust undermined our current manager by saying he would prefer someone else.
No I wasn't, I was saying that bringing up Chris Powell in relation to the Charlton managerial position is not uncommon and not virtue signalling.
So let's get this straight SDAddick, just how useful do you think it was at this stage of the season, under some of the most difficult circumstances that one can imagine, for our manager to hear from the Chair of the Supporters' Trust that he would prefer to see Chris Powell in the job?
I've already explained this. Go back through my posts for the context.
I think this was an ill-judged and badly timed thing to say, but RW has apologised. I can't imagine LB will care at the moment, but if he is a success (and I hope he is) this question will come up again and again just because it is in the nature of the press. I had a row with a Sky 6 fan during the playoffs who had written LB as irretrievably racist based on him calling Keiran Dyer a "black c***'. I assume of he'd just called him a 'c***' it would have been acceptable.
wouldn't be surprised if Sky and possibly the press aren't already planning to ask Bowyers thoughts on this tomorrow. (if of course they read the forums) which will be a shame as this could unfortunately become a complete distraction from what the real issues are with the club.
He has done Bowyer a favour, as an ex-Newcastle player, he was going to get some stick anyway, but now all the younger fans that knew nothing about his past, they have got more ammunition, and I hate to think of some of the things they will shout. Nice of you to inform them Mr Wiseman
I think we're giving ourselves WAY too much credit on this one. Obviously I could be proven wrong, but I don't think this will be the reason that Bowyer's past is brought up, if it is at all tomorrow. And that past has already been brought up in other interviews and write ups during his tenure. You're both people whose opinions I respect immensely, ditto a lot of people who have posted here, but I do think this is a case where our own insulation, for lack of a better word, perhaps feeds how important something like this is.
Comments
In these situations he, whether he likes it or not, is speaking on behalf of the supporters trust.
There was no reason to mention Seed, Curbishley or Powell.
If Lee Bowyer can rightly be cut some slack for things he has said and done, then maybe the same ought to be extended to Richard.
He’s a volunteer not the Prime Minister. If people feel strongly he should not be chair of the trust, have a preferred candidate willing to stand, and are members they can go to the AGM and vote him out. That’s how it works. Otherwise you have no say, however much noise is made on social media or message boards.
Is there anyone who actually knows Richard who thinks he should resign or is this just the view of people who don’t know him and wish to judge him on limited evidence - which is exactly what they are complaining about in the first place.
Lack of elections may well be a function of member apathy rather than committee protectionism.
Maybe the more relevant questions are to ask firstly whether or not anyone outside of the Committee who has expressed an interest to serve has been summarily turned down or secondly, since the implication is one of 'cliqueiness', (is there such a word) have any Committee members been drummed out for not toeing the party line?
I ask these questions as a member myself.
Yes the answers could have been better and again he has apologised profusely. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but there is no way he should resign over this in my opinion.
As a trust member I do have concerns when the Trust Board Chairman makes a statement that is patently unhelpful at best and downright inflammatory at worst. He is of course entitled to his opinion but when he speaks like it or not it will be associated to his position as Trust Chair. As for not having any say other than voting at the AGM. I can vote with the cancellation of my membership.
For you information I do know Richard and as has been said numerous times on this thread including by me he is a gentleman and committed Charlton supporter. I do not want Richard to resign.
Limited evidence ? based upon an interview that has been roundly condemned by pretty much anyone that read it.
If the comment had been of a right wing nature (i.e. if RW was of a different political persuasion and had said for example that "we always wanted LB at this club because of his actions back at Leeds for which he should never need to apologise" he'd already be gone.
Not that i'm saying he should go, but you get the point.
You and anyone else can withhold your fiver, but out in the real world nobody will notice - including Lee Bowyer - and the trust will continue regardless, run by people most on here couldn't pick out in an identity parade. It will elect its chair at the AGM and most members won't bother to attend, not least because they will have long forgotten about this.
I think you are bringing Council Chamber deflection and denial tactics to the table. Being Teflon in politics works well I admit.
Yes, and I replied to the point you made above, which I don't agree with, but I've made a series of posts since in reply to others.
I mean the quote from Richard?
No I wasn't, I was saying that bringing up Chris Powell in relation to the Charlton managerial position is not uncommon and not virtue signalling.
So let's get this straight SDAddick, just how useful do you think it was at this stage of the season, under some of the most difficult circumstances that one can imagine, for our manager to hear from the Chair of the Supporters' Trust that he would prefer to see Chris Powell in the job?
I've already explained this. Go back through my posts for the context.