Another Bonkers Statement from Roland - the "The EFL must buy the club" one

I am all for "brainstorming" new ideas. In such exercises it is true quite literally nothing is deemed too "stupid".

It is a "behind closed door" exercise designed to remove the personal filters most people have before they release such random thinking into the public domain.

It is a process which then validates and revalidates any suggestion against the reality of considered opinion.

I find it troubling our beneficial owner appears to neither possess such personal or organisational filters.

We have another Laurel & Hardy moment. It is yet another fine mess.

I had drafted probably the longest post in my time on Charlton Life but in all honesty I tire of commenting on probably the most depressing examples of borderline corporate misfeasance I have ever witnessed.

The joke is becoming very old indeed. Just how many more times do we have to go through this farce.

Throughout the entire shambolic experience of the past 5yrs there is one very simple common factor which shines through; Indeed the beneficial owner proudly proclaims it at almost every opportunity. In what realm of fantasy does anyone think you can succeed at anything in making just a 2% commitment to overseeing a business working in a dynamic, fiercely competitive global billion pound industry.

It really is that simple. Such a grotesque failure of a personal & corporate duty of care directly correlates to the lack of industry & market knowledge, the absence of appropriate corporate oversight, totally inappropriate executive & operational appointments, the resultant abject operational and financial performance and now the increasing bizarre outbursts.

The latest outburst has at least saved you from ploughing through my detailed speculation on why we have travelled the journey we have over the past 12-18 months.

I had little to add to "the Vandalism" debate though M.Duchatelet's, once again, immature response betrays the very nature of his thinking and judgements which it seems may have prompted such acts of frustration.

In principle I am not in favour of such action. In truth graffiti, in such circumstances, ultimately defines an inability to influence the decisions which impact our lives. It is meant to attract attention, and often to be offensive. RD, in this instance, is the victim.

In itself it is normally counter productive but whether designed to provoke a response or not it seems we can rely on the beneficial owner to rise to the challenge.

Overall however the consensus has to be he is a victim of his own making.

In what alternative universe does anybody choose to step into English football with the intent to use a pan European club network and not understand it is a Global Industry, with global owners intent on investing considerable sums in, employing established and experienced professionals fully committed to, fully participating in a global brand.

In the real world It displayed an appalling and embarrassing level of due diligence, understanding and neglect.

In the real world I regret to inform M. Duchatelet and the club have, I suggest, acted in direct breach of EFL regulations.   

EFL Membership Regulations Section 2 Regulation 3.5

No Club, either by itself, its servants or agents, shall by any means whatsoever unfairly criticise, disparage, belittle or discredit any other Club or The League or in either case any of its directors, officers, employees or agents.

The club statement* is thus reckless, unprofessional, inaccurate and unhelpful in every way imaginable.

It embodies all we have seen since Jan 2014. It is about the interests of one man and one man alone.

I propose not to waste any more than 2% of my time on the individual concerned.

* Attaching a personal profile to such a corporate statement is beyond extraordinary. Any communications professional involved should seriously consider their position.

My interest is the club, its staff, its clubhouse management, its players and all those involved in the academy.

If the beneficial owner is serious in his intent to depart then he for once in his life needs to communicate with clarity and certainty. Just simply state your price to walk away and your rationale for such price. Everything else is irrelevant.

The confusing utterances on Talksport suggest it is wrapped around the clubs freehold properties. We need to know the mans understanding of what he thinks he bought and the realistic valuations of the related assets.

If based on London land prices let us see 3 independent professional valuations based on the current allowed usage of the land and the facilities thereon. Despite Idle Hans excellent assessment elsewhere the last published accounts do not provide the level of clarity needed.

Any speculative value based on normal commercial stadium use or land development has to be turned aside.

The reality is it is not a question of valuation but the degree to which this vendor will "hold hostage" the club assets to secure the greatest recovery of debt.

M. Duchatelet there is no originality of thought here. South London has danced through the curse of too many who have sought to use & abuse the real estate of our football clubs in their own interest, from Hammam at Wimbledon, Noades at Crystal Palace, even concerns with the environs at Millwall and of course our own Messrs Cash, Slater and Jiminez.

I had and have no interest in any of them as individuals, their nationality, their gender, their personal circumstances or personality traits beyond how they perform(ed) in "serving the organisation(s)" they represent(ed).

We all know there are times in ones life when we recognise the organisations we associate with no longer reflect our personal or professional values. Today I quite simply have had enough of the rambling, self obsessed, self serving, miserable nonsense which continues to emanate from this regime.

It is time for one of us to go.

I am mindful just over 25 years ago small numbers, then hundreds and ultimately thousands fought against all the odds to restore the club to its natural home. They did not due so to assuage the losses of a self important delusional owner who by his actions and words clearly has more money than common sense.

As then I am sure none of us have an appetite for "tilting at windmills" but is there a genuine appetite across the fan base to explore facilitating and driving change today. In very different times and very different circumstances is there a real appetite for the fight?

In my brainstorming exercise

In recognition of over 60 years of the collective experience in following the club I would be prepared to pledge a minimum of £2500 toward securing clear and free and unencumbered title to the land at The Valley and Sparrows Lane to ensure its continued use by Charlton Athletic Football Club in perpetuity.

It would be a "not for profit" investment. 

I would have no interest in running a football club.

I would have every interest in joining with others to secure the facilities, to offer secure tenure to those interested in running our football club, at entirely their own financial risk, while meeting the full operational, maintenance and development costs associated with such facilities.

Such a "franchisee" would have no automatic fall back on any other use of such secure tenure or its use as collateral in securing any financial services.  

I am just one small voice offering to take one small step forward. 6000 such single or multiple steps will produce £15mn*.

I face a simple choice do I step forward or do I step away.

Grapevine49

*Such a figure in no way asserts any valuation of the freehold assets of the club.