New SLP Articles: Roland didn't tell Powell to pick players & FFP changes are a disaster
Comments
-
It's very useful that Roland has now clearly (ish, amidst the lies) laid out his process for Charlton. He said 'the main goal is that the fans and people see this as a place where they can have a great time - meet friends, enjoy the game, watch good football and see youngsters perform well.
So we're a great time club. Fine. Let's break it down:
Meet friends - A fair enough plan, but it doesn't really work when the mess you've created is driving away 3,000 season ticket holders every week. So we can stamp that one as failed; there's now fewer people turning up to see their mates than ever.
Enjoy the game - Jesus. When was the last time someone enjoyed a game at The Valley? Sheffield Wednesday in November? We've seen some draws, mostly in the sight of pessimism and protest. Even when we beat Sheff Weds we were under the cloud of that chancer Fraeye being appointed and the feeling that the same old nonsense was starting up again. Maybe we have to look all the way back to Hull in August for when things felt really right at home. That's a fail.
Watch good football - I think he might be kidding now. We were good against Rotherham, we've turned out some effort-filled draws but the standard of player and depth of squad Roland has put upon us, coupled with the constant changes to the manager mean that the only hope you have of watching good football at Charlton is if a decent opposition side show up. So for away fans Roland's probably ticking the boxes. Not so much for our huff and puff failure machine though. Sorry Roland, this has been a fail.
See youngsters perform well - Now if he'd left it at 'see youngsters' he might have been on to something there. We've seen the contents of our Academy more than ever before this season, but most significantly, we've seen it more than we should have. The lack of squad investment means that too many youngsters have been thrown in too early and have had the stuffing knocked out of them being part of a losing team and knowing that they are the only option in their position. Ahearne-Grant has regressed, THD has suffered from over-exposure, Charles-Cook was chucked in too early, Lookman has too much expectation on him and I really think Morgan Fox should probably be put on suicide watch if he has to start another home game. Even Cousins seems to have regressed. All of these players have been adversely affected by this season, and what we're seeing is our youngsters performing badly, losing the good will that is normally afforded to Academy graduates, and losing faith in their talents. Far from having a good time watching our great Academy products flourish it's actually quite upsetting seeing such young players not being afforded the protection they should have from their club. Big fat Belgian fail.
So according to Roland's own blueprint for the Charlton plan, he's failing. Not because we aren't pushing for the Play Offs, not because we aren't spending big, but under his own criteria. And he planned this interview! What an idiot.36 -
Regarding FFP, the rules as written are useless. I don't personally have a problem with anyone pumping their own money into a club. The rules should be nice and simple, pump in as much as you like, but you can only get equity in return, you can't load the club up with debt. That would solve many of the issues, whilst giving owners the freedom to live the dream if that's what they want. It would also prevent the sort of leveraged buyout the Glaziers did with Man Utd.
You want to buy a club, you buy the club with your own money. You want to spend big, then spend big, but don't pretend you don't own the club and that you're just lending it money. I don't loan my house money when I pay to decorate, I just have to hope that the money I've spent is adding value so I'll see it back again if/when I sell.18 -
This, this and this.randy andy said:Regarding FFP, the rules as written are useless. I don't personally have a problem with anyone pumping their own money into a club. The rules should be nice and simple, pump in as much as you like, but you can only get equity in return, you can't load the club up with debt. That would solve many of the issues, whilst giving owners the freedom to live the dream if that's what they want. It would also prevent the sort of leveraged buyout the Glaziers did with Man Utd.
You want to buy a club, you buy the club with your own money. You want to spend big, then spend big, but don't pretend you don't own the club and that you're just lending it money. I don't loan my house money when I pay to decorate, I just have to hope that the money I've spent is adding value so I'll see it back again if/when I sell.
Roland is loading up the debt on Charlton. Joyes my try and pass it off as "quasi-equlity" but it is debt and Roland will see it as such if and when he tries to sell the club.
I would have been happy with a proper FFP system but most of the owners, and many fans, don't want it.
Let people spend what they want but not as debt. Then if a club is relegated from the Championship to League 1 they have no debt and can be sold for a reasonable price and won't go in administration.
Tan has just written off £68m at Cardiff. What a world were Tan seems a more reasonable owner than ours.16 -
I think you want to believe this because it allows you to persist with your belief that Richard Murray is an honest broker in all this. In fact, I suspect Murray has persuaded himself that this is what happened.PragueAddick said:
As for the 'picking the team' thing; which of us who worked in the corporate world did not suddenly find themselves with a new boss, one who had very definite ideas that he or she was determined to implement? You then came under great pressure to be positive about these great new ideas, even if you had misgivings. Flag up doubts, and you would be labelled as a negative influence in various guises. I am sure this is what happened here, not least because RM indicated as much at the time. Technically, legally, RD may be right. Any emails may not say exactly "play Thuram" or whatever. But they may well say something like "I don't understand why you don't play Thuram". In terms of the pressure, it amounts to the same thing, and SCP was clearly the type who was going to fight his corner on principle. It's a fight you always lose. And the real losers are us.
Let's be clear then - Duchatelet brought in players behind Powell's back and made clear he expected them to play. Thuram and Nego are two examples. He made clear he did not rate Kermorgant and Hamer very early on. His interference in team selection went well beyond the views that had been expressed by Jimenez, who was the very definition of an opinionated owner. It was not in any way a normal situation.20 -
You've completely missed my point. I said we don't know (you don't know, I don't know) what the deal Yann was offered was. The point I was making is Yann wanted to stay. He was a key player for us, playing under Powell who he had a great relationship with, adored by pretty much everyone of us fans.colin1961 said:
We all know he never told Powell to pick players Alex Dyer told us that after Powell left ...... Yann chose the money instead of signing the new deal , think what people need to remember is the Bournemouth deal was on the table before RD took over ....as Powell said the old owners had already said they were not going to offer Yann or Stephens new dealscabbles said:“I never read that he [Powell] said that,” responded Duchatelet. “But if he did, it is certainly wrong.
First line and a lie
“I did discuss on occasions about players - there were also problems at the time with key ones who wanted to leave, like Yann Kermorgant.
Another lie. I believe Powell over RD any day, and Powell said Yann was having to hold on for the right deal. We still don't know to this day if the deal tabled to Yann was good enough or acceptable to him to stay. But what we do know is he wanted to stay.
This guy is just a tosser, through and through.
Be interesting next week if he gets treated like Parker will do tomorrow ??
My point was in reference to what RD SAID IN THE ARTICLE. Read it back
there were also problems at the time with key ones who wanted to leave, like Yann Kermorgant.
Yann didn't want to leave, he wanted to be paid what he thought he was worth. Massive difference. Why you've trailed off into some ramble about your knowledge of the inner workings of our club I don't know.
Anyway I'm off for lunch with Marc Wilmots and James Henry, I need to brief them on the plans for the 2016/2017 season12 -
I may be wrong but I don't think anyone has much of a problem with his criticism of the FFP goalposts moving. His business plan, and by association our fortune, were victims of circumstance in that respect. But his blind failure to adapt in the face of this is akin to knocking out Betamax video players in an HD world.MrLargo said:
According to the second article, the loss limit was £6million last season, and we recorded a loss of £3.8million, so I think that makes you right. The limit is £13million this season.TelMc32 said:
Am I right in thinking he wasn't actually anywhere near the previous FFP limit in any case, so no wonder we're even further adrift now!kentred2 said:
If FFP was in place would that really mean Charlton under these clowns would be competitive? Unlikelysuperclive said:Agreed Henry and there is no sign of him changing his business plan. Just him hoping the ffp rules change. And kermogant wanting to leave? Is that not a complete lie?
I tend to agree with some of his comments about FFP. However, he can't get those rules changed because none of the other clubs want to, and his business model won't work under the current legislation, so why stick around? Or to put it another way, please f**k off.
As Einstein said, "the measure of intelligence is the ability to change." and right now Roland and Katrien are not being very clever.9 -
“Many, many clubs have owners who think it is not a football game - but that it is a money game."
“we want to pay a player not a money game but a football game, to show we have better coaches and an academy from a supporting side"
And to think the Germans get a hard time about irony...5 -
I wouldn't go that far, but it reads to me like RD feels that there is resistance to his ideas because he is a foreign owner. He is too delusional to see that there is resistance because his ideas so far have all been laughably shitStig said:“What will finally happen to the Championship is you will find most of the time, it is owners that are maybe Chinese or foreign. Is that a good evolution? I don’t know. I’m not so sure.Okay, I’m a foreign owner also - but Belgium is not so far away! It’s also a matter of culture, we share the same culture as an English culture.”
Is it only me that thinks there's a touch of racism here? Belgians are ok because Belgium is close to England and there's a similar culture so they don't really count as foreign. Chinese though? That's another matter, you wouldn't want a Chinese owner, would you? Thank you very much, Enoch Duchatelet.
Frankly Roly I'd far rather have a Chinese owner who actually cared about the club and saw fit to turn up and see what was happening now and again, than someone who lives just 250 miles away but who can't even be bothered to hang around to watch the team on a week when he's in the city. Someone who has so much in common with our culture, but who doesn't understand football, doesn't understand our league and crucially doesn't understand our club. Someone who is so stupid, that he thinks he can waltz in once a year give a load of old spin and tosh to a video camera and everything will be alright. Well it won't be alright. You're running our club into the ground. Get out and go!8 -
The £3.8m figure (and the other one in the article) are not the FFP-defined losses of CAFC so of limited relevance.MrLargo said:
According to the second article, the loss limit was £6million last season, and we recorded a loss of £3.8million, so I think that makes you right. The limit is £13million this season.TelMc32 said:
Am I right in thinking he wasn't actually anywhere near the previous FFP limit in any case, so no wonder we're even further adrift now!kentred2 said:
If FFP was in place would that really mean Charlton under these clowns would be competitive? Unlikelysuperclive said:Agreed Henry and there is no sign of him changing his business plan. Just him hoping the ffp rules change. And kermogant wanting to leave? Is that not a complete lie?
I tend to agree with some of his comments about FFP. However, he can't get those rules changed because none of the other clubs want to, and his business model won't work under the current legislation, so why stick around? Or to put it another way, please f**k off.0 -
He tried to be a politician ( and failed) but obviously still believes that if he peddles enough rubbish the gullible public will believe it. The Belgians didn't and somehow I don't think we will either.3
- Sponsored links:
-
Yikes.
Roland is fighting from the safety of his own safe haven in Belgium, that's what is happening. And his style of fighting is blaming all else and lying whilst at it.
If he wasn't worried he wouldn't fight.
Most of what he say's is a lie here, that's obvious, and to clear up the offer he gave Kermogant wasn't one of which would entice him to stay, he was settled in London. I don't know the amount but the fact Kerm wasn't part of Roland's plans says it all, we know what he does to people he doesn't want involved in CAFC.3 -
Well I for one am willing to give Roland a chance. He has a kind, gentle face and comes across as sincere.
Powell comes across as a bit dodgy with his flat cap and swagger. A bit like the men who run the bumper cars at the fair.
I know who I believe and am willing to give the Belgian leadership a chance until they prove me wrong.19 -
I don't have a great knowledge about how money in football works. But what it seems you're saying is that RD is spending money which isn't his and saying it is the clubs debt that the club must pay back through it's own means i.e. ticket sales, player sales, sponsorship etc. Is that really how it works? I could do that ffs!!Henry Irving said:
This, this and this.randy andy said:Regarding FFP, the rules as written are useless. I don't personally have a problem with anyone pumping their own money into a club. The rules should be nice and simple, pump in as much as you like, but you can only get equity in return, you can't load the club up with debt. That would solve many of the issues, whilst giving owners the freedom to live the dream if that's what they want. It would also prevent the sort of leveraged buyout the Glaziers did with Man Utd.
You want to buy a club, you buy the club with your own money. You want to spend big, then spend big, but don't pretend you don't own the club and that you're just lending it money. I don't loan my house money when I pay to decorate, I just have to hope that the money I've spent is adding value so I'll see it back again if/when I sell.
Roland is loading up the debt on Charlton. Joyes my try and pass it off as "quasi-equlity" but it is debt and Roland will see it as such if and when he tries to sell the club.
I would have been happy with a proper FFP system but most of the owners, and many fans, don't want it.
Let people spend what they want but not as debt. Then if a club is relegated from the Championship to League 1 they have no debt and can be sold for a reasonable price and won't go in administration.
Tan has just written off £68m at Cardiff. What a world were Tan seems a more reasonable owner than ours.0 -
Yes, you could, quite easily. Using other people's money is a long-standing business practice. Many will be too young to remember. But just look up Jim Slater and his firm, Slater Walker for an example from the 1970s of how to succeed and then spectacularly fail.Leeds_Addick said:
I don't have a great knowledge about how money in football works. But what it seems you're saying is that RD is spending money which isn't his and saying it is the clubs debt that the club must pay back through it's own means i.e. ticket sales, player sales, sponsorship etc. Is that really how it works? I could do that ffs!!Henry Irving said:
This, this and this.randy andy said:Regarding FFP, the rules as written are useless. I don't personally have a problem with anyone pumping their own money into a club. The rules should be nice and simple, pump in as much as you like, but you can only get equity in return, you can't load the club up with debt. That would solve many of the issues, whilst giving owners the freedom to live the dream if that's what they want. It would also prevent the sort of leveraged buyout the Glaziers did with Man Utd.
You want to buy a club, you buy the club with your own money. You want to spend big, then spend big, but don't pretend you don't own the club and that you're just lending it money. I don't loan my house money when I pay to decorate, I just have to hope that the money I've spent is adding value so I'll see it back again if/when I sell.
Roland is loading up the debt on Charlton. Joyes my try and pass it off as "quasi-equlity" but it is debt and Roland will see it as such if and when he tries to sell the club.
I would have been happy with a proper FFP system but most of the owners, and many fans, don't want it.
Let people spend what they want but not as debt. Then if a club is relegated from the Championship to League 1 they have no debt and can be sold for a reasonable price and won't go in administration.
Tan has just written off £68m at Cardiff. What a world were Tan seems a more reasonable owner than ours.
There are plenty of other examples. Paul Reichmann and his brothers set up the firm that built Canary Wharf using other people's money: it went bust and the brothers were left with very little. Guess what the rump business is now, again, a multi-million pound one and owns some of Canary Wharf. (It is perhaps amusing that Reichmann tried to ban bacon sandwiches from the building site and the construction crews walked out: bacon was soon back on the menu.)0 -
He is right about FFP, but he is wrong about how he runs the club. How he runs the club is upsetting me. He will say Powell was never forced to play players, but he was definitely pressured to. I have no reason to doubt what Chrissy has said, and Chrissy has no reason to lie. He admitted he was much more hands on in the beginning - what does that actually mean?0
-
That wasn't what I meant.Leeds_Addick said:
I don't have a great knowledge about how money in football works. But what it seems you're saying is that RD is spending money which isn't his and saying it is the clubs debt that the club must pay back through it's own means i.e. ticket sales, player sales, sponsorship etc. Is that really how it works? I could do that ffs!!Henry Irving said:
This, this and this.randy andy said:Regarding FFP, the rules as written are useless. I don't personally have a problem with anyone pumping their own money into a club. The rules should be nice and simple, pump in as much as you like, but you can only get equity in return, you can't load the club up with debt. That would solve many of the issues, whilst giving owners the freedom to live the dream if that's what they want. It would also prevent the sort of leveraged buyout the Glaziers did with Man Utd.
You want to buy a club, you buy the club with your own money. You want to spend big, then spend big, but don't pretend you don't own the club and that you're just lending it money. I don't loan my house money when I pay to decorate, I just have to hope that the money I've spent is adding value so I'll see it back again if/when I sell.
Roland is loading up the debt on Charlton. Joyes my try and pass it off as "quasi-equlity" but it is debt and Roland will see it as such if and when he tries to sell the club.
I would have been happy with a proper FFP system but most of the owners, and many fans, don't want it.
Let people spend what they want but not as debt. Then if a club is relegated from the Championship to League 1 they have no debt and can be sold for a reasonable price and won't go in administration.
Tan has just written off £68m at Cardiff. What a world were Tan seems a more reasonable owner than ours.
He is spending his own money but he isn't injecting it into Charlton as equity ie shares but as debt to companies that RD owns. He is lending the money to Charlton and taking interest at 3%. That is all legal and above board but just not very good for us or in line with RD version of himself as a loving owner so much better than those irresponsible Chinese and Arabs who would spend money like at Man City.
Charlton can't repay the money loaned as it is losing money. Roland can only get his money back by increasing income (in the premier league), reducing costs (we are seeing where that is taking us), selling our best players (we can see where that is taking us) or selling at a price that includes all his spending on the club (something like £25m so far in my poor estimate).3 -
The point about Championship FFP is that it is now the way the Premier League dictates that it should be. The PL doesn't want Championship clubs to be run on a nice, sensible break-even basis. Even nice, sensible Brighton ran up a loss of £10 million last year and said, oh well, that's what you have to do to be competitive.
Therefore, the Duchatelet model stands almost zero chance of even keeping the club in the Championship.
End of, as in: end of Charlton for the foreseeable future.5 -
We have the 3rd lowest budget in the championship. so we will probably finish 3rd bottom. that's how it works. if a Chinese guy wants to pump money into the club then why not?
What is Roland's solution? cross your fingers and hope that it changes? it will just get worse.2 -
None so blind as them that won't see.TellyTubby said:
What a strange world you inhabit.colin1961 said:
We all know he never told Powell to pick players Alex Dyer told us that after Powell left ...... Yann chose the money instead of signing the new deal , think what people need to remember is the Bournemouth deal was on the table before RD took over ....as Powell said the old owners had already said they were not going to offer Yann or Stephens new dealscabbles said:“I never read that he [Powell] said that,” responded Duchatelet. “But if he did, it is certainly wrong.
First line and a lie
“I did discuss on occasions about players - there were also problems at the time with key ones who wanted to leave, like Yann Kermorgant.
Another lie. I believe Powell over RD any day, and Powell said Yann was having to hold on for the right deal. We still don't know to this day if the deal tabled to Yann was good enough or acceptable to him to stay. But what we do know is he wanted to stay.
This guy is just a tosser, through and through.
Be interesting next week if he gets treated like Parker will do tomorrow ??
1 -
OK, Here is Chris Powell's side of the story - from CAS Trust News a year ago.
4 - Sponsored links:
-
Rick for Christ sake don't jump on me when there is the slightest whiff, on a half reading of a post, that I may have departed from a tightly scripted line that you want everyone to adhere to on pain of death or at least banishment.Airman Brown said:
I think you want to believe this because it allows you to persist with your belief that Richard Murray is an honest broker in all this. In fact, I suspect Murray has persuaded himself that this is what happened.PragueAddick said:
As for the 'picking the team' thing; which of us who worked in the corporate world did not suddenly find themselves with a new boss, one who had very definite ideas that he or she was determined to implement? You then came under great pressure to be positive about these great new ideas, even if you had misgivings. Flag up doubts, and you would be labelled as a negative influence in various guises. I am sure this is what happened here, not least because RM indicated as much at the time. Technically, legally, RD may be right. Any emails may not say exactly "play Thuram" or whatever. But they may well say something like "I don't understand why you don't play Thuram". In terms of the pressure, it amounts to the same thing, and SCP was clearly the type who was going to fight his corner on principle. It's a fight you always lose. And the real losers are us.
Let's be clear then - Duchatelet brought in players behind Powell's back and made clear he expected them to play. Thuram and Nego are two examples. He made clear he did not rate Kermorgant and Hamer very early on. His interference in team selection went well beyond the views that had been expressed by Jimenez, who was the very definition of an opinionated owner. It was not in any way a normal situation.
What part of
In terms of the pressure, it amounts to the same thing, and SCP was clearly the type who was going to fight his corner on principle.
did you not understand?
I 100% believe that RD unacceptably interfered with team selection (and certainly with squad recruitment, which is just as bad) and that if I was in SCP's shoes I would have resisted. The point remains that the employee never wins, and I know this well because I've been in SCP's shoes and as it happens my "boss" was Belgian too. And time has shown that I was right, as SCP was. But it was inevitable that we would both go.
It therefore does not really matter if there is a nuanced difference in what the emails say, as I suggest. And the last thing anyone should be tempted to do is persuade SCP to release the emails just to make the point, as to do so will damage his chances of future employment (look at Curbs after his action for constructive dismissal). There is no material difference between us on this point so, FFS let's not ruck on here about nothing.
2 -
I've said to David Joyes that his view of quasi equity somewhat depends on RD's exit plan. He responded, that assumes he's going to sell.Henry Irving said:
That wasn't what I meant.Leeds_Addick said:
I don't have a great knowledge about how money in football works. But what it seems you're saying is that RD is spending money which isn't his and saying it is the clubs debt that the club must pay back through it's own means i.e. ticket sales, player sales, sponsorship etc. Is that really how it works? I could do that ffs!!Henry Irving said:
This, this and this.randy andy said:Regarding FFP, the rules as written are useless. I don't personally have a problem with anyone pumping their own money into a club. The rules should be nice and simple, pump in as much as you like, but you can only get equity in return, you can't load the club up with debt. That would solve many of the issues, whilst giving owners the freedom to live the dream if that's what they want. It would also prevent the sort of leveraged buyout the Glaziers did with Man Utd.
You want to buy a club, you buy the club with your own money. You want to spend big, then spend big, but don't pretend you don't own the club and that you're just lending it money. I don't loan my house money when I pay to decorate, I just have to hope that the money I've spent is adding value so I'll see it back again if/when I sell.
Roland is loading up the debt on Charlton. Joyes my try and pass it off as "quasi-equlity" but it is debt and Roland will see it as such if and when he tries to sell the club.
I would have been happy with a proper FFP system but most of the owners, and many fans, don't want it.
Let people spend what they want but not as debt. Then if a club is relegated from the Championship to League 1 they have no debt and can be sold for a reasonable price and won't go in administration.
Tan has just written off £68m at Cardiff. What a world were Tan seems a more reasonable owner than ours.
He is spending his own money but he isn't injecting it into Charlton as equity ie shares but as debt to companies that RD owns. He is lending the money to Charlton and taking interest at 3%. That is all legal and above board but just not very good for us or in line with RD version of himself as a loving owner so much better than those irresponsible Chinese and Arabs who would spend money like at Man City.
Charlton can't repay the money loaned as it is losing money. Roland can only get his money back by increasing income (in the premier league), reducing costs (we are seeing where that is taking us), selling our best players (we can see where that is taking us) or selling at a price that includes all his spending on the club (something like £25m so far in my poor estimate).
The reality is that we won't know for certain until the club is sold. As I understand it there have been no payments servicing interest, so this would seem to indicate the intention isn't to rape the club - although perhaps he offsets some of CAFC's losses against Staprix's profits for tax purposes (assuming Stapix is profitable).
The big question is whether at the point of selling the club he would expect a return on his investment.
The flats question is a worry as well, as this would up the purchase price.0 -
@i_b_b_o_r_g and the rest of us neanderthals who enjoy the argument thread would like a ruck about nothingPragueAddick said:
Rick for Christ sake don't jump on me when there is the slightest whiff, on a half reading of a post, that I may have departed from a tightly scripted line that you want everyone to adhere to on pain of death or at least banishment.Airman Brown said:
I think you want to believe this because it allows you to persist with your belief that Richard Murray is an honest broker in all this. In fact, I suspect Murray has persuaded himself that this is what happened.PragueAddick said:
As for the 'picking the team' thing; which of us who worked in the corporate world did not suddenly find themselves with a new boss, one who had very definite ideas that he or she was determined to implement? You then came under great pressure to be positive about these great new ideas, even if you had misgivings. Flag up doubts, and you would be labelled as a negative influence in various guises. I am sure this is what happened here, not least because RM indicated as much at the time. Technically, legally, RD may be right. Any emails may not say exactly "play Thuram" or whatever. But they may well say something like "I don't understand why you don't play Thuram". In terms of the pressure, it amounts to the same thing, and SCP was clearly the type who was going to fight his corner on principle. It's a fight you always lose. And the real losers are us.
Let's be clear then - Duchatelet brought in players behind Powell's back and made clear he expected them to play. Thuram and Nego are two examples. He made clear he did not rate Kermorgant and Hamer very early on. His interference in team selection went well beyond the views that had been expressed by Jimenez, who was the very definition of an opinionated owner. It was not in any way a normal situation.
What part of
In terms of the pressure, it amounts to the same thing, and SCP was clearly the type who was going to fight his corner on principle.
did you not understand?
I 100% believe that RD unacceptably interfered with team selection (and certainly with squad recruitment, which is just as bad) and that if I was in SCP's shoes I would have resisted. The point remains that the employee never wins, and I know this well because I've been in SCP's shoes and as it happens my "boss" was Belgian too. And time has shown that I was right, as SCP was. But it was inevitable that we would both go.
It therefore does not really matter if there is a nuanced difference in what the emails say, as I suggest. And the last thing anyone should be tempted to do is persuade SCP to release the emails just to make the point, as to do so will damage his chances of future employment (look at Curbs after his action for constructive dismissal). There is no material difference between us on this point so, FFS let's not ruck on here about nothing.
4 -
I think the more time passes the more depressing that interview getsWeegie Addick said:OK, Here is Chris Powell's side of the story - from CAS Trust News a year ago.
0 -
To be fair to RD, inviting young kids to attend games for free is truly revolutionary and for this he should be complimented.6
-
Don't know why we ever got rid of the u16 for a quid adverts in the news shopper years back. Got me attending regularly before I could afford a season ticketnewyorkaddick said:To be fair to RD, inviting young kids to attend games for free is truly revolutionary and for this he should be complimented.
1 -
It is fucking ground breaking, i'll give him that.newyorkaddick said:To be fair to RD, inviting young kids to attend games for free is truly revolutionary and for this he should be complimented.
Perhaps he might think of a network of coaches to pick up fans spread further a field than London
Or he could offer to share the Valley with a Rugby League team.6 -
You define it as a "normal situation in the corporate world" and say "I am sure this is what happened here".PragueAddick said:
Rick for Christ sake don't jump on me when there is the slightest whiff, on a half reading of a post, that I may have departed from a tightly scripted line that you want everyone to adhere to on pain of death or at least banishment.Airman Brown said:
I think you want to believe this because it allows you to persist with your belief that Richard Murray is an honest broker in all this. In fact, I suspect Murray has persuaded himself that this is what happened.PragueAddick said:
As for the 'picking the team' thing; which of us who worked in the corporate world did not suddenly find themselves with a new boss, one who had very definite ideas that he or she was determined to implement? You then came under great pressure to be positive about these great new ideas, even if you had misgivings. Flag up doubts, and you would be labelled as a negative influence in various guises. I am sure this is what happened here, not least because RM indicated as much at the time. Technically, legally, RD may be right. Any emails may not say exactly "play Thuram" or whatever. But they may well say something like "I don't understand why you don't play Thuram". In terms of the pressure, it amounts to the same thing, and SCP was clearly the type who was going to fight his corner on principle. It's a fight you always lose. And the real losers are us.
Let's be clear then - Duchatelet brought in players behind Powell's back and made clear he expected them to play. Thuram and Nego are two examples. He made clear he did not rate Kermorgant and Hamer very early on. His interference in team selection went well beyond the views that had been expressed by Jimenez, who was the very definition of an opinionated owner. It was not in any way a normal situation.
What part of
In terms of the pressure, it amounts to the same thing, and SCP was clearly the type who was going to fight his corner on principle.
did you not understand?
I 100% believe that RD unacceptably interfered with team selection (and certainly with squad recruitment, which is just as bad) and that if I was in SCP's shoes I would have resisted. The point remains that the employee never wins, and I know this well because I've been in SCP's shoes and as it happens my "boss" was Belgian too. And time has shown that I was right, as SCP was. But it was inevitable that we would both go.
It therefore does not really matter if there is a nuanced difference in what the emails say, as I suggest. And the last thing anyone should be tempted to do is persuade SCP to release the emails just to make the point, as to do so will damage his chances of future employment (look at Curbs after his action for constructive dismissal). There is no material difference between us on this point so, FFS let's not ruck on here about nothing.
But to take a public sector example (although it could be private), a new hospital chief executive wouldn't tell surgeons how to operate. He or she might decide how many operations should be carried out and what equipment and drugs could be afforded, but not how to do the operation.
You said "flag up doubts and you may be branded a negative influence.... I am sure this is what happened here, not least because RM indicated as much at the time."
Powell was not flagging up doubts. He was refusing to do what the owner wanted, because he knew the owner was wrong. Murray's version of events is necessary to justify his continued status, just as at Christmas he compared criticism of Karel Fraeye's appointment to that of Alan Curbishley. He's never going to acknowledge that he's part of a circus because at that point he has to answer the question of why he's still supporting it.
The argument is not about whether anyone was regarded as "a negative influence". Powell was sacked because he refused to follow instructions that were of themselves unreasonable. It was interference in team selection, pure, unmitigated, and, as it happens, nonsensical judgement too.
Powell hasn't released the emails but the more he is goaded by Meire and Duchatelet calling him a liar the greater the chances that he will - and the less doing so has the ability to damage him in the wider world of football, where Meire and Duchatelet are rightly regarded as a joke.11 -
colin1961 said:
We all know he never told Powell to pick players Alex Dyer told us that after Powell left ...... Yann chose the money instead of signing the new deal , think what people need to remember is the Bournemouth deal was on the table before RD took over ....as Powell said the old owners had already said they were not going to offer Yann or Stephens new dealscabbles said:“I never read that he [Powell] said that,” responded Duchatelet. “But if he did, it is certainly wrong.
First line and a lie
“I did discuss on occasions about players - there were also problems at the time with key ones who wanted to leave, like Yann Kermorgant.
Another lie. I believe Powell over RD any day, and Powell said Yann was having to hold on for the right deal. We still don't know to this day if the deal tabled to Yann was good enough or acceptable to him to stay. But what we do know is he wanted to stay.
This guy is just a tosser, through and through.
Be interesting next week if he gets treated like Parker will do tomorrow ??
3 -
You really are a muppet, aren't you? Somehow you appear to have got every "fact" completely wrong.colin1961 said:
We all know he never told Powell to pick players Alex Dyer told us that after Powell left ...... Yann chose the money instead of signing the new deal , think what people need to remember is the Bournemouth deal was on the table before RD took over ....as Powell said the old owners had already said they were not going to offer Yann or Stephens new dealscabbles said:“I never read that he [Powell] said that,” responded Duchatelet. “But if he did, it is certainly wrong.
First line and a lie
“I did discuss on occasions about players - there were also problems at the time with key ones who wanted to leave, like Yann Kermorgant.
Another lie. I believe Powell over RD any day, and Powell said Yann was having to hold on for the right deal. We still don't know to this day if the deal tabled to Yann was good enough or acceptable to him to stay. But what we do know is he wanted to stay.
This guy is just a tosser, through and through.
Be interesting next week if he gets treated like Parker will do tomorrow ??
1. We all know he did tell Powell to pick the players. In addition to Alex Dyer telling us that, so did Chris Powell himself on talkSPORT.
2. Powell said that the new owners had specifically said there was going to be a new deal for Yann; this didn't materialise after Roland bought the club.
Come on, Col. You're making it too easy.2
