Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Latest Katrien Miere article (Evening Standard)

1235»

Comments

  • As people have said, the Standard article is really just a rehash of old news but it is generally positive and fair play to Katrien for getting her and the club's name out there. Her other media performances over the last week are also testament to her ambassadorial skills, whilst the success, thus far, of Guy Luzon suggests that the board have now probably got two out of the last three appointments right.

    The one reservation I have at the present time (leaving aside whatever might transpire over the next four or five months) is Katrien's apparent refusal to engage with the Trust. As Athletico has remarked, this feels like a 'divide and rule' approach and one which, for me, is both distasteful and counter-productive. I do not know the genesis of the issue - whether it be the Trust's facilitation of the Woolwich meeting (for which they were rightly commended) or some other miscommunication or perceived snub or discourtesy - but maybe it is now time to draw a line under the politicking and move forward in a more constructive way. Perhaps she and Steve Clarke or one of his colleagues can quietly achieve some kind of détente over a glass of wine or a couple of bottles of Chimay. If so, it will be for the better.
  • edited March 2015
    Blucher said:

    As people have said, the Standard article is really just a rehash of old news but it is generally positive and fair play to Katrien for getting her and the club's name out there. Her other media performances over the last week are also testament to her ambassadorial skills, whilst the success, thus far, of Guy Luzon suggests that the board have now probably got two out of the last three appointments right.

    The one reservation I have at the present time (leaving aside whatever might transpire over the next four or five months) is Katrien's apparent refusal to engage with the Trust. As Athletico has remarked, this feels like a 'divide and rule' approach and one which, for me, is both distasteful and counter-productive. I do not know the genesis of the issue - whether it be the Trust's facilitation of the Woolwich meeting (for which they were rightly commended) or some other miscommunication or perceived snub or discourtesy - but maybe it is now time to draw a line under the politicking and move forward in a more constructive way. Perhaps she and Steve Clarke or one of his colleagues can quietly achieve some kind of détente over a glass of wine or a couple of bottles of Chimay. If so, it will be for the better.

    But is she "dividing and ruling" by saying she wishes to engage with all supporter groups not one on one with individual groups? Isn't the Trust the only group she has given an exclusive meeting with and did we not on here discuss that Murray continues to talk with Trust members? We seem to be going round in circles, the same things are being said over and over again and yet they don't appear to stack up.

    Anyway the Trust don't want to speak to her they want to speak to RD.
  • So how many public appearances / talks before 'the meeting' and how many after?

    She has gone from practically no information/profile to overload! I am Not complaining about the later as it is what fans asked for/wanted.

    I sent her a very polite email, no response ever received. I think she over dramatises certain things and plays a good victim. I see a future role as CEO of Liverpool.

    Not speaking to the Trust but speaking to all these others feels a little 'divide and conquer' to me too.

    Agreed.

    Talks to the wrong people.
  • So how many public appearances / talks before 'the meeting' and how many after?

    She has gone from practically no information/profile to overload! I am Not complaining about the later as it is what fans asked for/wanted.

    I sent her a very polite email, no response ever received. I think she over dramatises certain things and plays a good victim. I see a future role as CEO of Liverpool.

    Not speaking to the Trust but speaking to all these others feels a little 'divide and conquer' to me too.

    Agreed.

    Talks to the wrong people.
    The local and national media ?
  • if I were the CEO and as I was walking down Harvey Gardens some bloke handing out Trust News was shouting something along the lines of 'get the Trust News, join the Trust, help get rid of the Belgian' I'd be pretty disinclined to want to engage with them. KM is at least getting our name out there and that is a massive positive, Jiminez wouldn't even talk to the press, let alone supporters groups, and yet that was ok, apparently.
  • May I reiterate what Henry has already said, which is Katrien's appearances at Bromley Addicks and East Kent Addicks were organised before the public meeting, even though they took place after the public meeting..
  • I asked the question before the public meeting whether the intention was "to build bridges or to burn them". There were some posters who were making demands and veiled threats that have probably created a rift with KM that will take a lot of work to repair.
    The complaints about lack of communication are now being altered to communication with "the wrong people". I have spoken to KM recently and I get the impression that she is willing to engage with people who are prepared to listen as well as talk.
    She is growing into her job and mistakes have been made - and admitted - and I personally think she will improve with time, with experience and with the help of continuing success of our team on the pitch.
  • Let's not forget that there was on going communication from within the club to supporter's groups prior to the meeting, both official and via Richard Murray
  • edited March 2015

    if I were the CEO and as I was walking down Harvey Gardens some bloke handing out Trust News was shouting something along the lines of 'get the Trust News, join the Trust, help get rid of the Belgian' I'd be pretty disinclined to want to engage with them. KM is at least getting our name out there and that is a massive positive, Jiminez wouldn't even talk to the press, let alone supporters groups, and yet that was ok, apparently.

    There is no comparison between KM's role as chief executive and TJ's, as he played almost no part in running the club.

    What unknown people shout in the street in February 2015 does not explain Katrien's negativity towards the trust, which goes back more than a year.

    Regarding delroofer's comments, the opposite is true. She appears not to be interested in the hearing views that may be better informed than the owner's, which is presumably why she has kept a whole range of people away from her - including former directors - consistently.

    I think to suggest it's because those people won't listen is meaningless. She as chief executive is in the position to make the decisions regardless of what anyone else thinks. The question is why she is so determined to avoid hearing other informed views. Nobody can make her act on such advice, but she could have built relationships that might help her.
  • Sponsored links:


  • i think it's pretty clear , this regime want 'yes' people round them and are Charltonised in the fact they are touchy to any criticism , constructive or otherwise , as owners that is their prerogative

  • i think it's pretty clear , this regime want 'yes' people round them and are Charltonised in the fact they are touchy to any criticism , constructive or otherwise , as owners that is their prerogative

    Probably right, but they shouldn't be allowed to get away with the line that it's because of the way other people behave or that other people are unreasonable. And in the real world what they do and say will continue to be scrutinised and commented on regardless of what they want.
  • "What unknown people shout in the street in February 2015 does not explain Katrien's negativity towards the trust, which goes back more than a year."

    The unknown person who gave me a flyer said come along to the meeting to get rid of Roland. No ambiguity there.
    If Katrien who already had doubts about the trust, heard this( of course she got to hear this) then don't be surprised if the trust are seen in a negative light by the CEO.

    Agree with Airman Brown on other points but i guess the one person we assume that Katrien listens to is Richard Murray, who would have influenced her in who to trust and who to keep at arms length.
  • So if one , two or twenty Charlton fans said black was white does that mean we are all of the same view and are mad (excluding that dress that was a different colour)
  • One unknown person verses the repeated message the the Trust was facilitating an open meeting. It was perfectly clear to anybody taking a moment to pay attention to how the meeting was assembled, that it wasn't of the nature shouted in the street.
    The club had a VIP meeting just before the Woolwich one, and hurriedly arranged the young lad video, I wonder why, was it because they recognised rightly or wrongly that there was a groundswell of concern?
    If the regime feel threatened by a group of their customers forming a trust then they have not been reading the runes very well.
    We have it very well embedded who the piper is, and what the tunes should be, and if the piper wants to hold the trust in utter contempt (which isn't quite the case) they can do so.
    I think it's known as 'building a better future together'.
  • So if one , two or twenty Charlton fans said black was white does that mean we are all of the same view and are mad (excluding that dress that was a different colour)

    No and for the same reason, The Trust are not seen by KM to be a clear and totally agreed voice of the fan base - she may think they have a negative agenda.
  • I relate the goings on at Charlton to my previous employer. It went from an almost family based company where employees were consulted about almost every decision made, some decisions were even reversed after consultation. To a company when taken over by a huge japanese car manufacturer that didn't give a second thought to what I or any other employee's thought on the subject. Many times I heard the "if you don't like it, you know where the door is" phrase coming out of some member of the management team's mouth. From where I'm standing its the same scenario, but replace that with "Roland will do it his way, no matter what we think" Yes, I think the soul was ripped out of my previous company and the Charlton Athletic that I grew up to love has changed massively and likewise it appears they have the same attitude. To me, its never been just about 90 minutes of football. Its about the Charlton family from Charltonlife arranging Charity matches, half marathons to drunken away days on coaches. The Pierre Bolangi memorial garden, the Charlton Upbeats, to who won't speak to who and the club and supporters treating each other with suspicion the whole thing seems to have gone arse upwards. I had as much influence over my employer as I do Charlton Athletic, but made a decision to leave the company as soon as I could. That was my choice and I made it, have I left Charlton Athletic?.... I don't know is the answer. I certainly think they are making it easy to say I have, I haven't received any invitation to renew my season ticket and if I'm to be treated as a customer then I assume my custom has a certain value so would expect one. Should I not receive it then I will almost certainly not renew, but attend if and when I choose as is my right as a customer.
  • edited March 2015

    "What unknown people shout in the street in February 2015 does not explain Katrien's negativity towards the trust, which goes back more than a year."

    The unknown person who gave me a flyer said come along to the meeting to get rid of Roland. No ambiguity there.
    If Katrien who already had doubts about the trust, heard this( of course she got to hear this) then don't be surprised if the trust are seen in a negative light by the CEO.

    Agree with Airman Brown on other points but i guess the one person we assume that Katrien listens to is Richard Murray, who would have influenced her in who to trust and who to keep at arms length.

    As a matter of fact Richard Murray specifically undertook some time ago to ask Katrien Meire to meet Steve Clarke, a former director of the club (before Steve became chair of the trust). Nothing happened. If Murray advised her to keep Steve Clarke at arm's length that would be bizarre in the extreme, as anyone who knows Steve would realise. Equally it's a matter of record that Murray talks to Prague - why would he then tell Meire not to speak to him?

    It may well be that he wants to keep her away from Peter Varney and perhaps anyone else who would provide a different version of Varney's involvement with the club to his, but should the business of the club be subordinated to the perpetuation of this feud? And if that was the case, you'd think Meire would be bright enough to have worked it out.

  • I think the issue here is that KM has decided that whilst communicating more is a good idea, she (on her own initiative or Roly Poly's) has decided to make it about her own agenda instead of responding to the Trust's - regardless of how well intentioned it seems to be. It's a case of proactive rather than reactive, for whatever reason KM and the board are not interested in direct dialogue with the Trust - but they are aware of some of the issues, they simply intend to deal with them in their own way on their own time.

    I am not necessarily saying this is right nor wrong, just why I think the Trust is not being engaged with - there is a perception of an agenda of the Trust by the current ownership, correctly or otherwise, and they are not prepared to deal with it... (yet?)
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited March 2015

    "What unknown people shout in the street in February 2015 does not explain Katrien's negativity towards the trust, which goes back more than a year."

    The unknown person who gave me a flyer said come along to the meeting to get rid of Roland. No ambiguity there.
    If Katrien who already had doubts about the trust, heard this( of course she got to hear this) then don't be surprised if the trust are seen in a negative light by the CEO.

    Agree with Airman Brown on other points but i guess the one person we assume that Katrien listens to is Richard Murray, who would have influenced her in who to trust and who to keep at arms length.

    As a matter of fact Richard Murray specifically undertook some time ago to ask Katrien Meire to meet Steve Clarke, a former director of the club (before Steve became chair of the trust). Nothing happened. If Murray advised her to keep Steve Clarke at arm's length that would be bizarre in the extreme, as anyone who knows Steve would realise. Equally it's a matter of record that Murray talks to Prague - why would he then tell Meire not to speak to him?

    It may well be that he wants to keep her away from Peter Varney and perhaps anyone else who would provide a different version of Varney's involvement with the club to his, but should the business of the club be subordinated to the perpetuation of this feud? And if that was the case, you'd think Meire would be bright enough to have worked it out.

    I was thinking of Peter Varney, and as i don't have your inside information on the relationship between Richard Murray and people around, past and present,(i have garnered most of my info from that Rick Everitt!)) you would have to assume then that it's the new broom syndrome which wants to just put it's own marker down and ignore any words of wisdom because they can't separate the wheat from the chaff.



  • thenewbie said:

    I think the issue here is that KM has decided that whilst communicating more is a good idea, she (on her own initiative or Roly Poly's) has decided to make it about her own agenda instead of responding to the Trust's - regardless of how well intentioned it seems to be. It's a case of proactive rather than reactive, for whatever reason KM and the board are not interested in direct dialogue with the Trust - but they are aware of some of the issues, they simply intend to deal with them in their own way on their own time.

    I am not necessarily saying this is right nor wrong, just why I think the Trust is not being engaged with - there is a perception of an agenda of the Trust by the current ownership, correctly or otherwise, and they are not prepared to deal with it... (yet?)

    I think you are absolutely right
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!