Non-playing staff roles

AFKABartram

Always kind of wondered this. 

Do you reckon the amount of interest and knowledge  (and online discussion) had by our fans in regards to the roles non-playing staff (COOs, commercial, ground staff, admin, internal line management etc) is reflected across most clubs? 

Or do you think at Charlton there’s just a far higher level of scrutiny, knowledge etc

sam3110

I think 20 years ago we gave less of a toss about it. But when things are going wrong it inevitably brings the SMT into sharper focus. Over the past decade it's only been worse and worse for us and therefore the powers that be get thrown into the spotlight a lot more

addickson

Not just at Charlton, for example this was on Dumbarton forum recently (names blanked by me)

"The more I read that statement from xxxxxx the more insulting I find it. The trust rep on the board gives me the absolute fear as well. Now that the chairman has nailed his colours to the mast regarding the ownership situation we really need someone in there who is willing to stand up against everyone else and quite literally be the only opposition in the room. I don’t think for a minute she will do that. I have plenty of other concerns about her as well but that’s now my main one. We need shot of xxxxxx urgently. The owners may be dangerous but having a man in charge who drinks in their pish like soup could genuinely be the death of us. I’d prioritise getting shot of xxxxxx over xxxxxx and I think supporters should very seriously consider making their voices heard. I will be emailing the club. I would avoid going through the Trust rep, if you somehow have a contact for her."

I'm very glad that there are people out there who do scrutinise our clubs, but I must admit having seen it and done it my enjoyment of football has waned.

cafcsinger

Maybe not related but on the rare time I go on another clubs forum I'm always surprised at the lack of posters, often from teams much bigger than ours.
Does this have anything to do with it? I'm not sure, but the success of CL and how many post on here regularly could be a factor in why their seems more scrutiny on off the pitch stuff.

Then comparatively we've had much worse ownership over the last 10 years than the average club, so it's natural their more stuff to unpick and criticise. 

eaststandmike

I have always shown an interest in non playing staff, I follow Gilby, Leko & Lee on Twitter! 

Crusty54

Any club will have a turnover in their back room staff. Retirements and job offers. The problem is that the name Martin keeps on coming up. He has been a role in data management not anything else. Saw Ron Dangerfield in the 1905 Lounge on Saturday talking to Charlton people. 

Lincsaddick

for my part I have never and still don't pay much attention to any other 'staff members' than the players, managers and coaches .. I suspect that the widespread CLifer interest over the minutiae of the CAFC affairs of state is akin to a deep love affair with the club, or perhaps, akin to the other Addick obsession (so it is rumoured), train spotting 

Cafc43v3r

sam3110 said:

I think 20 years ago we gave less of a toss about it. But when things are going wrong it inevitably brings the SMT into sharper focus. Over the past decade it's only been worse and worse for us and therefore the powers that be get thrown into the spotlight a lot more

I think it goes much future back than 20 years.  I would go as far back as the mid 80s.

If you look back the good times and bad times are almost so black and white it's scary.   There hasn't been much time at all that everything has been alright or OK.

People will point fingers, wisper names etc etc.  Some people got out at the right time so are blameless for the bad stuff, some people were only here for the bad stuff, some were 100% responsible for the bad stuff, some weren't.  Some were 95% responsible for the good stuff, some weren't.

I think the knowledge is healthy, I think the casting of EVERYONE as either a goodie or a baddie isn't.

MartinCAFC

sam3110 said:

I think 20 years ago we gave less of a toss about it. But when things are going wrong it inevitably brings the SMT into sharper focus. Over the past decade it's only been worse and worse for us and therefore the powers that be get thrown into the spotlight a lot more

Think this is right on the money.

Someone said on the Wayne Mumford thread they'd like to see how our commercial income compared to Pompey or Ipswich. With the greatest respect to the poster I can't see any Pompey or Ipswich fans wanting to know about our commercial income.

A few weeks ago when we appointed Ron Dangerfield I was amazed by all the negativity and conspiracy theories brought up. I asked an Arsenal supporting mate of mine, he couldn't even name there secretary and he's not a plastic fan either.

Definitely a higher level of scrutiny, rightly so but not something that's going away anytime soon 

Henry Irving

I think it's a number of factors.

Many of the staff were Charlton fans, especially after coming back to the Valley.

The Valley Party and other protests have lead to greater scrutiny of all aspects of the club both because we had more "ownership" both literally and emotionally. 

The return and rebuild of the Valley and club was based on fan involvement, VIP schemes, share issues etc.

We have a very engaged fan base with a wide range of skills as shown by the Valley Party and later.  

And so we feel its our right to know what's going on, who does what and why because it is our club.

The interaction from fan run Q & As down the years and fan driven programmes from Red, White and Black and even the museum have created a culture of if we want this to happen then we can and will do it ourselves,  we won't wait for the club to do it for us. We fans still run the player of the year do, when the community trust wanted to get the initial funding for the upbeats they came to the fans.

And CL is, most of the time, a site for grown ups where views are expressed and challenged unlike most other club's site which are just "you're a ****" "no, you're a ****". So you can read about accounting, business, coaching, marketing from experts or at least practitioners in those and other fields.

And partly that's because Charlton doesn't have to the same extent a macho hooligan culture. No, we're not going to riot but we are going to investigate and expose you while liaising with the police and media.

We also aren't a small club but we're not a massive one either. You can play the Kevin Bacon game at Charlton and get to pretty much every other Charlton fan in six steps.

We are the biggest village team in the world.

Airman Brown

MartinCAFC said:

sam3110 said:

I think 20 years ago we gave less of a toss about it. But when things are going wrong it inevitably brings the SMT into sharper focus. Over the past decade it's only been worse and worse for us and therefore the powers that be get thrown into the spotlight a lot more

Think this is right on the money.

Someone said on the Wayne Mumford thread they'd like to see how our commercial income compared to Pompey or Ipswich. With the greatest respect to the poster I can't see any Pompey or Ipswich fans wanting to know about our commercial income.

A few weeks ago when we appointed Ron Dangerfield I was amazed by all the negativity and conspiracy theories brought up. I asked an Arsenal supporting mate of mine, he couldn't even name there secretary and he's not a plastic fan either.

Definitely a higher level of scrutiny, rightly so but not something that's going away anytime soon 

Perhaps they don’t have a problem and we do? Charlton’s commercial income has always been at the lower end. It affects our ability to compete on the pitch with those clubs. There are complex reasons but it’s more than failings of individuals.

People often make completely unrealistic assumptions about sponsorship, for example. I think it’s healthy to create more understanding around that. 

It’s also hardly surprising if someone who has been at the club for 35 years is well known and that people who spend time on boards like this then take a passing interest in who replaces him.  It doesn’t mean the average fan does.

Cafc43v3r

Airman Brown said:

MartinCAFC said:

sam3110 said:

I think 20 years ago we gave less of a toss about it. But when things are going wrong it inevitably brings the SMT into sharper focus. Over the past decade it's only been worse and worse for us and therefore the powers that be get thrown into the spotlight a lot more

Think this is right on the money.

Someone said on the Wayne Mumford thread they'd like to see how our commercial income compared to Pompey or Ipswich. With the greatest respect to the poster I can't see any Pompey or Ipswich fans wanting to know about our commercial income.

A few weeks ago when we appointed Ron Dangerfield I was amazed by all the negativity and conspiracy theories brought up. I asked an Arsenal supporting mate of mine, he couldn't even name there secretary and he's not a plastic fan either.

Definitely a higher level of scrutiny, rightly so but not something that's going away anytime soon 

Perhaps they don’t have a problem and we do? Charlton’s commercial income has always been at the lower end. It affects our ability to compete on the pitch with those clubs. There are complex reasons but it’s more than failings of individuals.

People often make completely unrealistic assumptions about sponsorship, for example. I think it’s healthy to create more understanding around that. 

It’s also hardly surprising if someone who has been at the club for 35 years is well known and that people who spend time on boards like this then take a passing interest in who replaces him.  It doesn’t mean the average fan does.

My dad had no idea, nor interest, in who Chris Parks is when I told him he was leaving.  He had a vague idea he had heard the name.

The commercial revenue is a really interesting because of you were selling, or buying, it and just looked at the location, the demo etc etc you would think it was a potential gold mine, as a number of people have. Its obviously not because they can't all be idiots.