Post by reamsofverse on Dec 2, 2009 23:11:01 GMT
To post this on any other Charlton website apart from the one they continually give it up the arse to, I will do it for them.
Before I do if anybodY thinks that I am being too sensitive on this matter I have reason to be because not so long back when I made a complaint to the FF regarding such bias, I was assured that our forum would be included in such matters in the future.
Clearly this has no happened so let them get on with their you scratch my back and I'll scratch your policy.
We opened inevitably with a question about any potential take-over offers, a topic we would come back to periodically throughout the evening.
Richard explained that there are about 34 clubs currently up for sale. The recent £7m investment by Directors had provided sufficient working capital and funding to ensure that we can continue to operate and that we don’t need to sell any current assets, although the Club may choose to do so, if it sees fit. The Club intends to be selective regarding any potential buyers in order to ensure that things remain in good hands.
The idea of selling ‘naming rights’ to the stadium was discussed. Richard believes that such an idea is only relevant in the Premier League, but would welcome input from fans on that topic.
Richard’s relationship with Derek Chappell was raised. Richard explained that he had always considered himself as the “main man”, but that Derek had put a lot of money into the Club in a short space of time and that this should be reflected in terms of status. Nevertheless, the recent streamlining of the Board was felt to be a necessary and positive step. There was no reference to antagonism or differences of opinion between Richard and Derek.
As we moved onto the topic of relegation, Richard expressed the view that the Premier League squad was maybe felt not to be good enough a year before relegation. His feeling was that Alan Curbishley may have lost a bit of an edge at that stage, maybe as a result of media pressure to ‘go to the next level’. The view was that Curbishley enjoyed being linked with the big jobs (England, Tottenham etc), but would always be reluctant to accept them, if offered. That aside, Richard made it abundantly clear on several occasions that he regards Curbishley as a “hero” and is full in his praise for what was achieved.
A specific question was asked about the date for this year’s AGM. It was confirmed that it will be held between Christmas and the New Year.
Relegation from the Championship and the perception of Phil Parkinson were discussed together. The Board had been desperate for Alan Pardew to be successful but, after his departure, felt that Parkinson “had something” and that he deserved a chance. Richard freely admitted that finances had also come into it. The Board clearly like Parkinson’s style of management and feel that his purchases this season have been fantastic. He has engendered a good team spirit and, tellingly, seems to treat the Club’s money as if it is his own. In that respect, as David White was keen to point out, Phil Parkinson is regarded as being as close to Alan Curbishley as possible and is “definitely the right man to take us up … and further”.
Discussion of players’ performances lead to Richard giving general details about our wage bill. He mentioned that most of our players are on “reasonable wages” (we took that to mean ‘reasonable’ from the perspective of those who are paying, not those receiving!) and that some are on “very reasonable’ wages. He talked about our overall wage bill in comparison to other League 1 clubs later in the evening.
Regarding loan players, Ikeme has now gone back to Wolves on the basis that Robbie Elliott is almost back to full fitness, while David Mooney’s loan extension had been agreed earlier in the day. Akpo Sodje is regarded as “really exciting”.
Will we have to sell if we don’t go up this season? Richard gave a candid “yes” answer. We’d have to sell two or three players. Can we keep the squad if we do go up? It is likely that we can retain the squad, but it will be hard to add to it significantly in the absence of outside investment. Our ‘true’ level will be Championship at best without such investment – maybe reflecting the size of the Club historically. Richard speculated that maybe Burnley are becoming the new ‘model’ Club … get promoted, don’t overspend while there and then ensure that any income is used to secure a stable future in the event of any relegation.
We have fourteen players out of contract in the summer, but we are not alone. Many other clubs are in the same situation – and it leads to the interesting dilemma of players being hungry to secure new contracts, but maybe losing that edge when the new contract is signed. As a Club, Richard emphasised that “we like hungry players”.
Richard discussed the transfer fees and sell-on clauses of a number of players who have left the Club in recent years. Although he gave out quite detailed figures, I do not propose to include them here, but it was encouraging to confirm that we negotiated pretty good deals with Michael Turner, Madjid Bougherra, Andy Reid, Djimi Traore and Soulemayne Diawara.
The financial reality of League 1 was explained. We will face a multi-million pound deficit this year. There were firm bids for two players last summer, but we chose to avoid selling. Moving forward (and, again, on the assumption that outside investment is not forthcoming) we need to base our future on what we have within the Club. The Club deserves huge credit for keeping faith in the Academy; young players coming through is the best advert for the Club’s policy.
Richard seems well-acquainted with the financial viability of our nearest League 1 rivals. Our wage bill is a bit lower than Leeds, with Huddersfield and Norwich just behind us. He believes that Huddersfield have a wealthy backer, but that Norwich are financially stretched and that they may be forced to sell some of their playing assets in January. Do not buy Delia Smith’s new book this Christmas (pause for laughter). Colchester seem to losing money heavily, but it is Leeds who will gamble this year on the basis that the ageing Ken Bates is growing tired of being in League 1.
The recent Daily Mirror article was dismissed as “lazy journalism”, “mischievious” and “counter-productive”.
The Premier League 2 idea was discussed … should our target be to try to reach the top 36 to ensure that we would be part of that? Richard thinks that the idea is unlikely to be successful. He believes that the key element is that more money flows down through the divisions. It is impossible for a new investor to buy into the Premier League title race now as the sums of money involved are so vast, so there is less incentive to gamble.
The recent improved performances of Darren Ambrose and Jerome Thomas were highlighted and Richard wondered whether the penny had now dropped for these two. He was asked whether we are now considered as a feeder club for the likes of Man Utd in view of the loss of Sean McGinty last summer. Richard argued that most clubs (he cited West Ham as an example) could be viewed as feeders for the top clubs, and explained that we gained a good fee for McGinty who may or may not develop, of course.
The financial impact of the FA Cup loss at Northwich was discussed. In pure monetary terms we would have gained £50k for progression into Round 2. Richard was clearly distraught at the abject performance and claimed that, had the players been on Premier League wages, he would have insisted that they pay back the fans who travelled. He also confirmed that, contrary to some press speculation, there was a Director’s presence at the Northwich game, although both he and David White had previously arranged (separate!) holiday over that weekend. Richard re-iterated that he attends almost every game, home or away.
A question about the top heavy Club hierarchy was posed ... how is it that we operate with a chief executive, deputy chief executive, managing director etc? Richard pre-empted the formal announcement about Nigel Capelin by an hour or so and agreed that numbers had not been right, but that Nigel had agreed to finish some things off before leaving the Club. Richard felt that we probably need “about one and a half people” in those roles, but provided some detail about the scope and intensity of Steve Waggott’s job (which, from a Fans’ Forum perspective, I would strongly endorse).
The lack of competitive Reserve Team fixtures was identified. We have saved about £50 – 100k in running costs, but Phil Parkinson feels that there is great benefit in playing friendlies at the Training Ground, to a schedule that we can control. This makes it better for players returning from injury, and matches of a higher standard can actually be arranged.
Chris Dickson was discussed. The feeling is that his style of play was not and is not suited to the 4-5-1 system we employed in the early part of the season, and that Dickson is not happy when he is not in consideration for the first team. His agent may have an over-inflated idea of how good Dickson is. Earlier this week, Lennie Lawrence described Dickson as an “impact player” who may be more appreciated by fans rather than fellow team mates (in contrast, say, to Deon Burton who is well-respected by his fellow players for the contribution that he makes, but maybe not always seen to be a crowd-pleaser).
The Iain Dowie saga was resurrected and Richard went over the oft-heard stories behind the rift. A court case and/or arbitration are still pending, so this part will need to remain unpopulated.
We reverted to the subject of Alan Curbishley, and whether Richard would have him back. Richard explained that, as a person, … yes … and re-iterated his earlier “hero’ comment, but that previously things had become too comfortable and that, actually, Alan Curbishley was “not that exciting for the Board”. Richard believes that Curbishley’s perfect job now would be at Ipswich … so watch out, Roy Keane!
We finished up by talking about policing arrangements for the Millwall match and then a specific question about the Gold and Sullivan speculation. After a thoughtful and philosophical pre-amble, Richard explained that he would be prepared to entertain offers which might be forthcoming from the Gold and Sullivan group and that lead me to ask whether the Club was making a proactive, positive approach to them. This question seemed to run contrary to Richard’s business principles and, after a few explanatory sentences, he told me, with a clear smile on his face, that “we do not go chasing”. Personally I found this quite illuminating from a business strategy perspective, but others may have a different view.
Before I do if anybodY thinks that I am being too sensitive on this matter I have reason to be because not so long back when I made a complaint to the FF regarding such bias, I was assured that our forum would be included in such matters in the future.
Clearly this has no happened so let them get on with their you scratch my back and I'll scratch your policy.
Richard Murray Q+A (26th November 2009)
Notes from the Chair (Dave Rudd – Fans’ Forum)
Notes from the Chair (Dave Rudd – Fans’ Forum)
We opened inevitably with a question about any potential take-over offers, a topic we would come back to periodically throughout the evening.
Richard explained that there are about 34 clubs currently up for sale. The recent £7m investment by Directors had provided sufficient working capital and funding to ensure that we can continue to operate and that we don’t need to sell any current assets, although the Club may choose to do so, if it sees fit. The Club intends to be selective regarding any potential buyers in order to ensure that things remain in good hands.
The idea of selling ‘naming rights’ to the stadium was discussed. Richard believes that such an idea is only relevant in the Premier League, but would welcome input from fans on that topic.
Richard’s relationship with Derek Chappell was raised. Richard explained that he had always considered himself as the “main man”, but that Derek had put a lot of money into the Club in a short space of time and that this should be reflected in terms of status. Nevertheless, the recent streamlining of the Board was felt to be a necessary and positive step. There was no reference to antagonism or differences of opinion between Richard and Derek.
As we moved onto the topic of relegation, Richard expressed the view that the Premier League squad was maybe felt not to be good enough a year before relegation. His feeling was that Alan Curbishley may have lost a bit of an edge at that stage, maybe as a result of media pressure to ‘go to the next level’. The view was that Curbishley enjoyed being linked with the big jobs (England, Tottenham etc), but would always be reluctant to accept them, if offered. That aside, Richard made it abundantly clear on several occasions that he regards Curbishley as a “hero” and is full in his praise for what was achieved.
A specific question was asked about the date for this year’s AGM. It was confirmed that it will be held between Christmas and the New Year.
Relegation from the Championship and the perception of Phil Parkinson were discussed together. The Board had been desperate for Alan Pardew to be successful but, after his departure, felt that Parkinson “had something” and that he deserved a chance. Richard freely admitted that finances had also come into it. The Board clearly like Parkinson’s style of management and feel that his purchases this season have been fantastic. He has engendered a good team spirit and, tellingly, seems to treat the Club’s money as if it is his own. In that respect, as David White was keen to point out, Phil Parkinson is regarded as being as close to Alan Curbishley as possible and is “definitely the right man to take us up … and further”.
Discussion of players’ performances lead to Richard giving general details about our wage bill. He mentioned that most of our players are on “reasonable wages” (we took that to mean ‘reasonable’ from the perspective of those who are paying, not those receiving!) and that some are on “very reasonable’ wages. He talked about our overall wage bill in comparison to other League 1 clubs later in the evening.
Regarding loan players, Ikeme has now gone back to Wolves on the basis that Robbie Elliott is almost back to full fitness, while David Mooney’s loan extension had been agreed earlier in the day. Akpo Sodje is regarded as “really exciting”.
Will we have to sell if we don’t go up this season? Richard gave a candid “yes” answer. We’d have to sell two or three players. Can we keep the squad if we do go up? It is likely that we can retain the squad, but it will be hard to add to it significantly in the absence of outside investment. Our ‘true’ level will be Championship at best without such investment – maybe reflecting the size of the Club historically. Richard speculated that maybe Burnley are becoming the new ‘model’ Club … get promoted, don’t overspend while there and then ensure that any income is used to secure a stable future in the event of any relegation.
We have fourteen players out of contract in the summer, but we are not alone. Many other clubs are in the same situation – and it leads to the interesting dilemma of players being hungry to secure new contracts, but maybe losing that edge when the new contract is signed. As a Club, Richard emphasised that “we like hungry players”.
Richard discussed the transfer fees and sell-on clauses of a number of players who have left the Club in recent years. Although he gave out quite detailed figures, I do not propose to include them here, but it was encouraging to confirm that we negotiated pretty good deals with Michael Turner, Madjid Bougherra, Andy Reid, Djimi Traore and Soulemayne Diawara.
The financial reality of League 1 was explained. We will face a multi-million pound deficit this year. There were firm bids for two players last summer, but we chose to avoid selling. Moving forward (and, again, on the assumption that outside investment is not forthcoming) we need to base our future on what we have within the Club. The Club deserves huge credit for keeping faith in the Academy; young players coming through is the best advert for the Club’s policy.
Richard seems well-acquainted with the financial viability of our nearest League 1 rivals. Our wage bill is a bit lower than Leeds, with Huddersfield and Norwich just behind us. He believes that Huddersfield have a wealthy backer, but that Norwich are financially stretched and that they may be forced to sell some of their playing assets in January. Do not buy Delia Smith’s new book this Christmas (pause for laughter). Colchester seem to losing money heavily, but it is Leeds who will gamble this year on the basis that the ageing Ken Bates is growing tired of being in League 1.
The recent Daily Mirror article was dismissed as “lazy journalism”, “mischievious” and “counter-productive”.
The Premier League 2 idea was discussed … should our target be to try to reach the top 36 to ensure that we would be part of that? Richard thinks that the idea is unlikely to be successful. He believes that the key element is that more money flows down through the divisions. It is impossible for a new investor to buy into the Premier League title race now as the sums of money involved are so vast, so there is less incentive to gamble.
The recent improved performances of Darren Ambrose and Jerome Thomas were highlighted and Richard wondered whether the penny had now dropped for these two. He was asked whether we are now considered as a feeder club for the likes of Man Utd in view of the loss of Sean McGinty last summer. Richard argued that most clubs (he cited West Ham as an example) could be viewed as feeders for the top clubs, and explained that we gained a good fee for McGinty who may or may not develop, of course.
The financial impact of the FA Cup loss at Northwich was discussed. In pure monetary terms we would have gained £50k for progression into Round 2. Richard was clearly distraught at the abject performance and claimed that, had the players been on Premier League wages, he would have insisted that they pay back the fans who travelled. He also confirmed that, contrary to some press speculation, there was a Director’s presence at the Northwich game, although both he and David White had previously arranged (separate!) holiday over that weekend. Richard re-iterated that he attends almost every game, home or away.
A question about the top heavy Club hierarchy was posed ... how is it that we operate with a chief executive, deputy chief executive, managing director etc? Richard pre-empted the formal announcement about Nigel Capelin by an hour or so and agreed that numbers had not been right, but that Nigel had agreed to finish some things off before leaving the Club. Richard felt that we probably need “about one and a half people” in those roles, but provided some detail about the scope and intensity of Steve Waggott’s job (which, from a Fans’ Forum perspective, I would strongly endorse).
The lack of competitive Reserve Team fixtures was identified. We have saved about £50 – 100k in running costs, but Phil Parkinson feels that there is great benefit in playing friendlies at the Training Ground, to a schedule that we can control. This makes it better for players returning from injury, and matches of a higher standard can actually be arranged.
Chris Dickson was discussed. The feeling is that his style of play was not and is not suited to the 4-5-1 system we employed in the early part of the season, and that Dickson is not happy when he is not in consideration for the first team. His agent may have an over-inflated idea of how good Dickson is. Earlier this week, Lennie Lawrence described Dickson as an “impact player” who may be more appreciated by fans rather than fellow team mates (in contrast, say, to Deon Burton who is well-respected by his fellow players for the contribution that he makes, but maybe not always seen to be a crowd-pleaser).
The Iain Dowie saga was resurrected and Richard went over the oft-heard stories behind the rift. A court case and/or arbitration are still pending, so this part will need to remain unpopulated.
We reverted to the subject of Alan Curbishley, and whether Richard would have him back. Richard explained that, as a person, … yes … and re-iterated his earlier “hero’ comment, but that previously things had become too comfortable and that, actually, Alan Curbishley was “not that exciting for the Board”. Richard believes that Curbishley’s perfect job now would be at Ipswich … so watch out, Roy Keane!
We finished up by talking about policing arrangements for the Millwall match and then a specific question about the Gold and Sullivan speculation. After a thoughtful and philosophical pre-amble, Richard explained that he would be prepared to entertain offers which might be forthcoming from the Gold and Sullivan group and that lead me to ask whether the Club was making a proactive, positive approach to them. This question seemed to run contrary to Richard’s business principles and, after a few explanatory sentences, he told me, with a clear smile on his face, that “we do not go chasing”. Personally I found this quite illuminating from a business strategy perspective, but others may have a different view.
