As the title suggests is the club being run on a budget designed to hinder success ? My recollection was we never had ambition, we regularly sold to pay the bills, Treacy, Campbell, Went and before that Bailey, Glover, Bonds not forgetting the biggest of the lot Killer Hales. Then the New England Tea men debacle . .Are we once again becoming the club of my youth ?
1
Comments
Parallels between Seed and Bowyer perhaps.
"Glikstein told Mullery that he didn't really want to get promotion, as it would cripple the club with increased wages and the new players that would be needed. He felt the club could not afford it. Mullery felt totally disillusioned with the situation and this must have rubbed off on the players........."
Edit: obviously forgetting the rubber boat and its attached bounty
Seem to recall Mullery wanting to land Archie Gemmill, he argued he would be the catalyst to our promotion. Apparently Glikstein could afford him, but not the promotion. Gemmill was a fantastic player, would've loved to see him in a red shirt.
There was of course no social media in those days and Glikstein got away with murder.
P.S Bet your 9 year old has no trouble sleeping
Now there is money to be made in football. Glikstein had no vision of making money from the club. RD and others believe Premier League then treble etc money. But RD is deluded, he thought it was easy money, so now he grasps you need to spend first, with risk, will not do it so sells to keep his losses down. He really is a fool, his good money is chasing bad. He needs to sell - now.
Mullery - under Gliksten then Hulyer
Craggs - under Hulyer
Lennie - under Hulyer (and a bit of Collins) then under Sunley (John Fryer from March 1984)
ho really had an eye for a player.
Michael Gliksten was the bastard
He was, well how shall we say......just sort of there......Meh.
Fucked off to Australia without so much as a look backwards at SE7........something he should have done at least a decade earlier.
Was something of a useless nobody in truth, who never appreciated the great honour and duty towards the inheritance bestowed upon him.
His words to me were the Gliksten's would sell anything that moved if they could make money.
The Brothers influenced Michael who carried on in the same vein. Instead of invested in the 1969 team which came third in the Championship ( 2nd Division) he sold the heart of the team and the years before killer Hales were a complete shambles.
3 or 4k against the like of Port Vale !
Compare the Gliksten's to the Hillwoods' at Arsenal.
No wonder you became a Millwall fan.
Ps. Good to have you back as my Bermondsey dad taking me to the Den in my formative days is why I had to have anger management therapy. I'm a calm tai chi, poetry and spoken word guy now.
DO YOU HEAR ME JIMMY ?
But we have had two chairmen who didn’t care about the club - Roland and the last of the Gliksteins, Michael.
The seeds of what we have now was sown in the 60s and 70s. While other clubs adapted and prospered, Charlton sold its best, lost the bulk of the massive crowds of the previous three decades and failed to invest in the ground. All this happened under the Gliksteins.
With the last of the Gliksteins we saw the ground falling further into disrepair. We read about plans for housing. Then the rumours of moving the club lock, stock and barrel to Milton Keynes. And the continual loss of our best players.
This led to to convulsions of the 80s with near extinction and loss of the Valley, and despite those glory years, it’s led to us being owned by an individual who will continue to sell the assets to balance the books, because he doesn’t like us or care about us.
Where the comparison fails I suppose is that the current chairman did actually purchase the club rather than have it handed to him as a family heirloom.
I've posted similar before but it bears repeating. Michael Gliksten inherited the Club at 23. Not a typo I meant twenty three. How many 23 year olds are going to make the right decisions all of the time? Unlike the Belgian he watched the matches and, even if not full time, was involved in the day to day business of the Club.
The big difference between the two in my opinion is motive. Gliksten's motive was to enable the Club to survive and he would have argued that a big fee from one exceptional player would enable two or three better players than others on the staff to be purchased. One can argue the toss as to the wisdom of that strategy for sure and we did but at least, in his own way and within his own parameters, he was trying to improve or at least sustain the Club.
Duchatelet on the other hand, it seems to me, sells players because he can and doesn't give a fig for the effect on the Club.
I think it unfair to the memory of Michael Gliksten to even mention him in the same breath as that Belgian twat.
The Alan Pardew of his day. 'Nuff said.
Michael Glikstein, could have sold the Valley to Sunley and we would have never got back there, they wanted to move to Selhurst Park, they would have built on the Valley, so you could say they were much worse owners than Glikstein.
As for Alan Mullery, I would not believe a word that came out of his mouth
Apparently he had Gemmill and the Northern Irish International Dave Mccreary lined up.
The funniest part of the Charlton chapter in his book is the way he describes sharing a leaky office with Benny Fenton.
Apparently Benny kept on moaning about how Mullery had scored a goal for Fulham which dented the Spanners promotion push in 1972.