Glikstens v Duchatelet
Comments
-
I'd take the Glistens over Duchatelet any day of the week.
They didn't have much in the way of ambition for the club but at least they knew how to run a professional football club.0 -
Far from perfect especially in latter years but I'd take the Gliksten brothers any day.0
-
Michael Gliksten was a bad owner.
Roland Duchatelet is a very Bad owner.
Gliksten wins by only being a bad owner.0 -
The Glikstens, between them, caused some terrible times for Charlton, through under-funding, lack of ambition and the debacle of the ownership of (parts of) the Valley.
But until Duchatelet has taken Charlton to successive promotions, hired the club's longest-serving manager, won the FA Cup and spent a period of time in which Charlton could be said to be amongst the best teams in the world, he won't be able to be mentioned in the same breath.
The Glikstens were poor because they didn't know enough about football. Duchatelet is dangerous because he thinks he does.12 -
Duchatelet is doing far more damage. The Glikstens are the reason why we should have ambitions beyond the lower divisions.
Edited.0 -
I can't help being a anorak ?
The correct way to spells the name of the two brother and a son who owned CAFC is the Glikstens.
Every one including me spelt their names wrong ! (now corrected)0 -
Who cares!!??? It's all about the bloody present!!0
-
No apostrophe.soapboxsam said:I can't help being a anorak ?
The correct way to spells the name of the two brother and a son who owned CAFC is the Gliksten's.
Every one including me spelt their names wrong ! (now corrected)0 -
Everyone?Chizz said:
No apostrophe.soapboxsam said:I can't help being a anorak ?
The correct way to spells the name of the two brother and a son who owned CAFC is the Gliksten's.
Every one including me spelt their names wrong ! (now corrected)0 -
John Fryer ?0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Sorry Chizz (now corrected Sir)Chizz said:
No apostrophe.soapboxsam said:I can't help being a anorak ?
The correct way to spells the name of the two brother and a son who owned CAFC is the Gliksten's.
Every one including me spelt their names wrong ! (now corrected)
1 -
The Gliksten brothers rebuilt The Valley, appointed Jimmy Seed as manager and oversaw the meteoric rise from Third Division title winners to Division 1 runners-up in successive seasons, missing out as League Champions by just a single point.
No club had ever achieved that before. And not forgetting, also in successive seasons, a losing Wembley Final and the FA Cup win.
Charlton became so successful with regular huge crowds (including 75,000 against Villa in the Cup), that they were tipped to become as big as Arsenal, then the leading club in the country.
People felt all it needed was more investment in the ground and team, but it never happened. Even the opportunity to sign Stanley Matthews was lost - but just as well financially as it turned out, as the League was abandoned at the outbreak of War and football ground to a halt.
Michael Gliksten was only 21 when he inherited the position of Chairman - and sure, he oversaw the gradual run down of the club over the next 20 years.
But despite everything he did take a personal interest and attended games, keeping the club running for a long time with a few decent player sales but also frequently from his own pocket.
It became an expensive hobby and he gradually tired of it. Then Mark Hulyer bought the club, but not the ground.
In addition to Hulyer's reckless extravangancies, what did for the pre-1984 club was Gliksten keeping hold of the ground - and was one of the major causes of Sunleys taking the club to Selhurst.
Compare that to Duchatelet, who appears to have bought Charlton solely as an eventual profiteering exercise.
10 -
Sorry Ashers, i've had a stressful day.Ashers said:
Everyone?Chizz said:
No apostrophe.soapboxsam said:I can't help being a anorak ?
The correct way to spells the name of the two brother and a son who owned CAFC is the Gliksten's.
Every one including me spelt their names wrong ! (now corrected)1 -
It's not a contest ... Duchatelet has done nothing0
-
Both a bunch of wankers!0
-
I think Oggy Red has pretty much laid it out.
The present owners are worst than Michael Glickstein in my opinion and I thought he was bad enough.
What beggars belief is the quick time scale the present owner and his team have achieved the complete destruction of the heart of the club. During the MG reign I think fans sung from the same him sheet albeit one of disenchantment. Unlike now split in to factions.
If the present owner and SMT stay and persist with their way of doing things I wouldn't be surprised to see the clubs status heading to where the Glicksteins brought it up from.
0 -
This prick is far worse if he stays much longer I fear for Charlton, it could take years to get back to even where we are now.0
-
Roly.0
-
It's a difficult comparison to make in some ways, as they were in charge at very different times. There was more secrecy in Gliksten's days - at least, as far as I was concerned - whereas RD is more exposed thanks to social media. However, I did think Gliksten knew what a football club was and I suspect he was more typical of the owners of his time. RD seems like a different kettle of fish and stands out with the bad owners that turn up at Blackpool and the like in these times. Whether being exposed by the modern need for transparency makes it tougher for RD or not is irrelevant in my book. He is an owner of a professional football club in 2016 and has to live or die by the way things work now. To my mind, RD is far worse. I don't need to ramble on about the bad decisions, the poor treatment of fans, players, poor receruitment etc. etc. No comparison, I say.1
-
John Fryer and Ron Noades were responsible for Charlton moving to Selhurst Park. Blame Michael Gliksten for running the club down or selling it to Hulyer, but at no stage did he force Charlton to leave. Fryer and Noades wanted it to happen. That's why it did.4
-
Sponsored links:
-
I wondered at the time if Jimmy Hill had some influence in this with Fryer, ground sharing was something he used to bang on about.Airman Brown said:John Fryer and Ron Noades were responsible for Charlton moving to Selhurst Park. Blame Michael Gliksten for running the club down or selling it to Hulyer, but at no stage did he force Charlton to leave. Fryer and Noades wanted it to happen. That's why it did.
0 -
Derek Ufton and Lennie Lawrence both say not.StrikerFirmani said:
I wondered at the time if Jimmy Hill had some influence in this with Fryer, ground sharing was something he used to bang on about.Airman Brown said:John Fryer and Ron Noades were responsible for Charlton moving to Selhurst Park. Blame Michael Gliksten for running the club down or selling it to Hulyer, but at no stage did he force Charlton to leave. Fryer and Noades wanted it to happen. That's why it did.
1 -
Well, that is that idea out the window. Many thanks for the feedback.Airman Brown said:
Derek Ufton and Lennie Lawrence both say not.StrikerFirmani said:
I wondered at the time if Jimmy Hill had some influence in this with Fryer, ground sharing was something he used to bang on about.Airman Brown said:John Fryer and Ron Noades were responsible for Charlton moving to Selhurst Park. Blame Michael Gliksten for running the club down or selling it to Hulyer, but at no stage did he force Charlton to leave. Fryer and Noades wanted it to happen. That's why it did.
0 -
If only duchatelet had bought the club as an eventual profiteering excercise.
I think he bought it initially as an experiment to see if his 'pioneering' feeder system would work.
It didn't.
I think he holds on out of sheer disinterest, and bloodimindedness.
He is right to say he doesn't feel the economic loss of his past mistakes, and this is what makes him such a terrible terrible owner.
If it hurt him, KM would have been fired an age ago.
He just genuinely doesn't give a shit about us and that's the most scary part.
At least he's not yet the Oystons who seem to be hell bent on wantonly screwing their club up, but he's not too far off.0 -
I find it difficult to understand why people are criticising Albert Gliksten and his brother who were running the club at a very successful time.
By all means slag the son Michael off for his actions .0 -
It's History now, but Albert and his Brother S.Gliksten had the chance to turn CAFC into the Arsenal of South London. Just think we could be getting annoyed that we have finished in the top four, twenty years in a row without winning the title.
Michael took over after his dad and uncle had let the stadium become a mess. he also let Bailey, Glover, Bonds etc leave the club for modest fees.
When i was a lad at a cafc open day, i was told by a cafc player from the 30's, who was an old man by this time that the brothers would sell anybody and anything if they could make a few pounds.
The Glikstens were mediocre owners at best.
Duchatelet is a shocking owner.
0 -
I never thought I'd say this, but what Chizz said.Chizz said:The Glikstens, between them, caused some terrible times for Charlton, through under-funding, lack of ambition and the debacle of the ownership of (parts of) the Valley.
But until Duchatelet has taken Charlton to successive promotions, hired the club's longest-serving manager, won the FA Cup and spent a period of time in which Charlton could be said to be amongst the best teams in the world, he won't be able to be mentioned in the same breath.
The Glikstens were poor because they didn't know enough about football. Duchatelet is dangerous because he thinks he does.0 -
I can't remember what was said publicly but didn't Jimmy Hill actually advise Fryer against the move ?Airman Brown said:
Derek Ufton and Lennie Lawrence both say not.StrikerFirmani said:
I wondered at the time if Jimmy Hill had some influence in this with Fryer, ground sharing was something he used to bang on about.Airman Brown said:John Fryer and Ron Noades were responsible for Charlton moving to Selhurst Park. Blame Michael Gliksten for running the club down or selling it to Hulyer, but at no stage did he force Charlton to leave. Fryer and Noades wanted it to happen. That's why it did.
0 -
I wouldn't say Glover 80k & Bonds 65K were modest fees for the times. Can't remember re Bailey but 45k comes to mindsoapboxsam said:It's History now, but Albert and his Brother S.Gliksten had the chance to turn CAFC into the Arsenal of South London. Just think we could be getting annoyed that we have finished in the top four, twenty years in a row without winning the title.
Michael took over after his dad and uncle had let the stadium become a mess. he also let Bailey, Glover, Bonds etc leave the club for modest fees.
When i was a lad at a cafc open day, i was told by a cafc player from the 30's, who was an old man by this time that the brothers would sell anybody and anything if they could make a few pounds.
The Glikstens were mediocre owners at best.
Duchatelet is a shocking owner.0 -
Under the Glikstens we won successive promotions to the 1st division, reached successive cup finals winning one and also played in front of the biggest crowds in our history.
Compare that with what RD has achieved.
No contest really.
GET OUT OF OUR CLUB1
