I
must be getting a bit slow on the uptake in my old age. When someone posted a
comment to say that the promised meeting(s) with supporters groups (or group)
would be held on 3 August I thought ‘fine, rather late, not the best of times
(as the comment mentioned), but at least progress’. When I saw the piece on the
club site about the ‘day of fun’ at The Valley I thought ‘good idea, chance to
showcase the improvements to the ground (which deserve praise), chance for fans
to mingle with the players etc’. It didn’t immediately occur to me that the two
are somehow supposed to be related. I hope they’re not, as what is being
offered up on the day – a question and answer session with Meire, Murray,
Peeters and Jackson – is, while laudable, not in any way shape or form
delivering on the statement released in March.
A
cynic might be tempted to conclude that some management course ‘graduate’ came
up with a wheeze, to turn around a perceived negative into a positive. (For the
record I used to have a policy of immediately binning a CV from anyone who’d
been on a management training course and have seen and heard nothing since to
make me change my mind.) ‘We have a problem. We issued a statement in March to try
to head off criticism and buy time and it seems some still expect us to deliver on the
contents. Why not have a fun day, open to all fans, give away some freebies, include
an informal chat with two board members, the head coach and the skipper, which
should be broad enough to ensure that the real concerns, like those pesky Trust questions, can be glossed over? We
are seen to be keeping our word, we should generate some goodwill, and we’ve
got around a problem’. If that (or something like it) is the thinking, it is treating
fans with contempt, regarding their views as potential problems to be
circumvented if possible.
Don’t
get me wrong. There’s absolutely no reason why contact between the board and
the supporters should be exclusively through the Trust, and/or the Royal Oak
group. The more the merrier. The March statement (which I printed out and kept; it is still on the club site if you go back far enough, to 28 March)
said ‘be assured that we will be making plans to meet with as broad a spectrum
of the fanbase as possible’. A fun day as outlined is a very useful element in
delivering on the promises. But it is only that. I don’t think anyone back in
March would have believed that this alone was what was intended to address the
very real and heartfelt concerns raised by the Trust and others.
Perhaps
the ‘board’ wishes to stick to the letter of the statement rather than the
spirit. So let’s go through it. ‘Since we arrived at the club in January we understood
the importance of interaction with Charlton supporters’. To back that up, the
video of the new board, a Q&A session with VIP supporters by Meire and Murray,
and the recorded interview with Duchatelet were cited. Sorry, but stage-managed
events/recordings are not a substitute for what – in March and still today – is
the real issue, Duchatelet being quizzed, unscripted, by fans’ representatives
on his plans, vision, and motivation. That would be interaction, not an attempt
to pay lip-service. The statement goes on. ‘Understandably, given events on and
off the field over the past few weeks, we have received a number of requests
from supporters’ groups for a meeting to discuss our approach to running
Charlton and our vision for the club’s future’. The Duchatelet recorded
interview is then cited as a ‘first step’, before the excuse for delay was
outlined.
To
be fair, nowhere in the statement is there an actual pledge to hold meetings
with one or more of the groups that had requested them. It is carefully worded
to avoid that. Instead there was that ‘as broad a spectrum of the fanbase as
possible’, which if you are a lawyer you may feel is satisfied by the fun day
Q&A. I don’t think there is any doubt that anyone reading the statement at
the time believed it amounted to a commitment to hold meetings with the groups
that had requested them, or at least just with the Trust. That was the spirit
of the statement.
Sometimes
even a lawyer’s statement inadvertently gives it away. The statement included: ‘we
understand the current requests for dialogue and are keen to meet with
supporters to hear their views and discuss a shared vision for the future of
this great club’. What is the point of ‘discussing a shared vision’? If it is
shared, both parties are in agreement and the ‘dialogue’ is mutually-supportive
and quite frankly pointless. What is wrong with discussion about a vision for
the club, to listen and perhaps take on board the views of those that might not
agree with it? That, again, would be interaction rather than paying
lip-service. The March statement said that we ‘are keen to meet with supporters’.
Prove it.
What
infuriates me is that – absent any fresh news regarding real meetings – it amounts
to a missed opportunity. A ‘problem’ is something to be dealt with, even learn
from, rather than circumvented (which usually means it doesn't go away). The Trust and others are people who
care about Charlton and have nothing but the best interests of the club at
heart. They devote time and effort to that end. They are people to be embraced
by the board, to be listened to seriously. People like myself who view with a
mix of disdain and concern what we understand of Duchatelet’s vision and
motivation (which is inevitably limited) would be ready to amend views in the
event that people who we know have Charlton’s interests at heart came away from
a meeting with Duchatelet (I mean no disrespect to Meire but the only question
I would ask her is exactly what her decision-making capabilities are) either
reassured or at least appreciative that he has taken time to truly listen to
what they have to say and to have answered their questions honestly, even if there is still disagreement.
Again,
don’t get me wrong. Duchatelet owns the club, he is under no obligation to have
meetings with supporters groups, it is not something that they have any right
to. We were told early on that communication isn’t one of his strengths. So be
it, I don’t know what he might be scared of. Absent such meetings just please
don’t in any way pretend to ‘understand the importance of interaction with
Charlton supporters’. They become empty words.
On
a brighter note (or at least a mix of the positive and negative), Peeters does
continue to impress with his openness and attitude. The comments regarding
Ghoochannejhad hit the right note. I don’t know yet whether he’s staying or
going, but agree that unless his attitude is better the latter is fine. I wasn’t
impressed with what I saw. His diving in and around the box was an
embarrassment, as was his obvious delight at having contributed mightily to the cause
when he managed to fall over around the centre-circle and win a free kick. He
clearly has talent, but I’d genuinely rather watch Dickie Plumb honestly plying
his trade.
So
there we have it. I hope everyone who attends the fun day has a great time. No
doubt the club site will be hailing a success whatever happens. I shall of
course have swanned off to France before then, so will not have the opportunity
in the Q&A to ask the only question that really matters: when will there be
the proper meeting)s)?