Promised Meeting(s) Cynically Circumvented?

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)?

Not Up For It Yet, But Will Be

As others have commented, it really ought to be the time of year when we start to get geared up and enthusiastic for the campaign ahead, rested and raring to go. Perhaps it’s the skinfull last night, the storm during the night, the two weeks-plus of builders (for some very necessary repairs), or the prospect of a late afternoon basking on the heath (which I hope won’t involve falling asleep and waking up in the middle of the next storm). Perhaps it’s the weeks of additional footie handed to us on a plate (we will gloss over my previous outstanding prediction that having luckily got past Chile, Brazil will go on to win it; I didn’t plan for the absence of the two key players or the fact that the rest of them, plus the manager, proved to be pants). But I’m not up for it yet.

I passed on Welling on Saturday as the front wall needed painting and after years of going to a glorified training session didn’t really fancy another. You can’t infer anything from the result or the players’ contributions. In recent years I’ve come away thinking that Mambo might be ready to make the first team (I hope he’s thriving at Ebbsfleet and does go on to have the career he promised) and that Pigott might make a major contribution to the campaign (again, hope it’s only a case of delayed a year). It isn’t malaise, or even antipathy towards the new owner, rather the usual prospect of being away for the start of the season and so mentally some way off getting prepared. As things stand, due to the rigidity of the French holiday season, it won’t be until the Derby game on 19 August that I get my first taste of it, and that’s a long way off.

I may be against us being consigned to Duchatelet’s consortium for a period of time (and may have been tempted to contribute for the Valley wall the fact that my favourite memories were all before he bought the club and will resume after he’s handed it on, but that would have been churlish), but I’ll readily acknowledge that a good sum has been spent on the ground and that the past few weeks have seen us bring in players that at least on paper look as though we can have confidence in being competitive (I’ve no comment on any of those brought as regards their abilities as I know no more than I read, but of course they are welcome and we trust they go on to be heroes, or at least make a more material contribution to satisfying our desires than Polish Pete has managed to date).

Of course it’s going to be a challenge for Peeters to get them to gel, work out the best partnerships and formation to play to strengths (assuming of course he picks the team). But the missing parts are getting filled in, so who knows? It’s daft at this stage to be making any sort of predictions for us, but whereas a few weeks ago it was a case of expecting decent players to be brought in, now it’s one of setting our doubts against those of other clubs and feeling that at worst there will be others facing a tougher challenge than us. Poor Jose (whose gone from being instructed to get the best out of a disparate bunch thrown together by someone else to being asked to create a new team almost from scratch but reportedly not from buy a new team but reportedly not having the backing for his choices), poor Fuller.

On other matters, we still wait and see. Still no news that I’ve seen regarding the promised meetings with supporters groups (no, it won’t be forgotten), some interest in the outcome of Standard Liege’s Champions League third qualifying round in late July and early August (if they make it into the competition proper, does the pendulum swing back to other elements of the consortium supplying decent players – and vice versa?), and now it seems the possibility of the Red, Red Robin being dropped.

On that one I’m in agreement with Wyn Grant (which hasn’t always been the case over recent months) that the song is part of the Valley experience. If it doesn’t suit the players and the manager (what the owner thinks is irrelevant) and fans are not strongly in favour of its retention for when the players come out, shift it to another slot. It isn’t the most rousing of songs, but it is fun and does get us singing and clapping, if not in a rabble-rousing manner. The argument that we’re not Robins so it should go doesn’t hold water. The club badge is an even more recent creation (of the 1970s I think), from a miserable effort to rebrand us as the Valliants. I’d be happy to see that one go, but it would mean more spend on a new crest (and let’s face it incorporating an ‘Addick in some way shape or form wouldn’t be easy). Perhaps Glenn Tilbrook can get the necessary permission to record a version of Mull of Kintyre which would be fit for purpose.

One more acid test of the new regime’s intentions might become apparent when we get to sample the new facilities at The Valley. Prices are for me an issue. I hope we’re not fed some line about the cost of a bottle of water being commensurate with those in airport lounges. It is a cartel approach. I expect (but of course don’t welcome) to get royally legged over if I want to buy some water in that sort of environment; I’m in a captive environment buying something from a company that doesn’t give a monkeys about my interests (which of course means I don’t buy, bar in extremis). At Charlton fans deserve to be treated as welcome guests playing their part rather than exploited to the max. We shall see.

So that may be it from me for a while. A Eurostar to Lyon awaits at the end of the month, by which time my partner Suzanne will have expected me to have finished the post-building work complete redecoration of my place (I have very limited abilities on that front but happily slosh around some paint) and to arrive ready to sort out her shower, washing machine etc before we head off on hols. By the time I return I expect Peeters to have us purring along like a well-oiled machine, rolling over all and sundry. Blimey, perhaps I am getting ready for it after all.

Devils And Dust

I had no plans to scribble anything about the World Cup. It’s not as if there’s a lack of it. But what a night! If Camus was looking for any fresh evidence to support his comments about football, morality and life he need only rerun the two games. First we had Brazil and Chile tearing into each other, in the best possible way, in the most breathless first half of a game I can remember, followed by Chile coming within the width of the woodwork from winning the game in extra-time and then from extending the penalty shoot-out. Similarities with England’s exits against Argentina and Germany (with the exception that we knew then that penalties would end in our tears), but I don’t think that any team can leave a tournament with more hard-won pride and respect.

Then we were served up ‘good versus evil’. Like everyone else I was rooting for Colombia, preferably by a few clear goals with Uruguay ending the game with six or seven on the pitch. I thought the final 20 minutes were fascinating, to see how the Uruguay players would respond to the gradual ebbing away of their hopes, already feeling that the world was against them. Basically I was waiting for it all to kick off. But – with the exception of one moment which seemed to pass without comment, when a Uruguayan player trying to get the ball for a free-kick kicked a lump out of the Colombian and surely should have seen red – they instead kept their cool and continued to strive nobly to get back into the game. One more goal for Colombia and/or one flare-up and it might have been different, but instead Uruguay went out with their dignity (on the pitch at least) intact.

We’re brought up to believe in ‘goodies’ and ‘badies’; the latter are the ones with the black hats in the movies. By the time you’re a wizened old git like me you know that nothing’s that simple. We all contain the seeds of both and in certain circumstances veer towards one or the other. I have my heroes: Wellington, De Gaulle, Camus etc. But I wouldn’t suggest for a minute that they didn’t have their own particular foibles (flaws if you like), weren’t people of their time, and didn’t say or do things that we would consider reprehensible. The Catholic church (and most religions) would have it differently; saints and sinners. As ideals, goals to work towards, the approach can be useful (just as it would, in my opinion, be far more useful to define human qualities that we as a nation aspire to rather than trying to pretend that there are ‘British values’, which surprisingly all turn out to be positive when put down on paper). I wouldn’t mind betting that Mother Theresa had a few less than saintly tendencies, none of which should seriously detract from her legacy.

I don’t blame Suarez (ha, spelt it correctly this time) for coming out with a line that just might have got him off the hook. Whether or not his ban is excessive or too lenient, the Fifa judgement amounts to branding him a liar. We all know that there’s no media-led vendetta against him. It’s just easier to believe in that rather than the alternative, that Suarez let down his team and his country, that the hero under pressure was found wanting and to be less than perfect. What is more shameful is the attitude of other vested interests: Liverpool looking to escape the consequences (whether in terms of the transfer fee or his availability) of Suarez’s actions as if they are being punished for something that doesn’t involve them (when they signed him they bought the whole package), the same for the Uruguay squad and management. They are only focused on their material interests. How can Suarez ‘fess up’ and try to deal with his problems on the pitch when all around him – and his entire nation - want him to serve their needs. Keep thinking of Cool Hand Luke’s howl of anguish: ‘stop feeding off me’.

If Suarez goes to Spain the Premiership will be a poorer place. Like other footballing geniuses he can do things that take your breath away. His movement for both goals against England was simply wonderful. He just isn’t Mother Theresa (or perhaps in a sense he is). I’ll never know what it feels like to have the expectations of a nation on your shoulders, how you cope if you blow it or how you feel if you succeed (Andy Murray etc). Let’s just be kinder when it’s the former and share the joy when the latter and accept it all as part of the game. People may think that Neymar’s reaction at the end of the shoot-out last night was a bit over-the-top. He’d only scored a penalty after all. But it was more than that. Five didn’t convert their spot-kicks but they weren’t the player set up to be the hero or the villain, Neymar was and he succeeded.

The post-match commentary on the box tended to focus on Brazil’s shortcomings to date, but if I were a gambling man I’d now get to the bookies (I’m old enough to think in those terms rather than click a button) and put on a double: Brazil to beat Colombia at 4/5 on and Brazil to win the World Cup at 5/2 (or 13/5). This is football of course and perhaps Colombia will be 4-0 up in the first 20 minutes; and there is a doubt over Neymar’s fitness. But I suspect that last night will lift the shackles from Brazil, that for the first time they will now believe that the tournament is theirs to win rather than the focus being on a fear of failure. Last night was their crucible. Colombia have made history already by making the quarter-finals for the first time and gave indications in the second half of their game that, notwithstanding the quality they have, mentally they have now won their competition. I could of course be wrong, but that’s all betting is: finding those moments when the odds look attractive enough.

My favourite goal to date remains Van Persie’s header rather than the wonderful strikes by Cahill and Rodriguez. Those shots were magnificent, superb technique and for pure aesthetical quality they top the Dutchman’s effort. It’s just that for me I see his goal as a masterpiece of improvisation. If there were the time to think it through, you could imagine an internal conversation: ‘my job is to put the ball in the net; it’s an unusual situation, I’m in the clear but the ball is coming towards me in the air; do I have the time to bring it down? No, the keeper’s off his line, if I can divert the ball over him and on target there’s a good chance of it going in’. To be able to sum up such a situation, come up with a solution, and execute it in the blink of an eye is football at its very best.

All Good Things Must End

The day that we feared, but which in our heart of hearts we knew was unavoidable, has indeed arrived. Tonight there’s no football on the box. Not a single bloody game. Get me hooked on three games a night, then confuse me a little with four games but only two capable of being watched live, then suddenly cold turkey. Rest day? Who organises these things? I don’t need a rest day, especially as it’s supposed to chuck down later on so chilling out on the heath with a bottle of red isn’t on the agenda. Whole bloody day to wait before normal service resumes; and one day it will all be over.

On other matters, I suspect I’m not the only one who had a double-take when seeing the reports that we’d splashed out EUR3m on Vetokele (assuming them to be true of course). Not on the grounds that we might have overpaid (I have no idea how good the guy is, hopefully he will prove the bargain of the season) but rather that one minute we’re failing to land a Barnsley striker apparently because of a failure to agree personal terms and watching Hamer and Dervite move on to take up better offers, all in line with the stated desire of getting the club to breakeven (or towards that goal) asap, the next we’re shelling out a sizeable sum. No contradiction of course – and hopefully the Trust and others will add questions about players contracts (ie the extent to which they may be required to move around the consortium) as and when the promised meetings actually take place – but strange nonetheless.

At this stage there’s no good reason not to take the signing, along with Duchatelet’s recent comments about building a team to compete in the Championship, at face value. I just hope that he and his people don’t get too formulaic when it comes to putting together a team. From things said/written plus the landing of Vetokele and the failure to sign O’Grady it’s tempting to believe that Duchatelet and his team of stats gnomes calculate what in their world a player should be worth (fees and wages) and, if the calculations say act, offer that – and walk away if those terms are not acceptable.

As a general principle that’s not necessarily wrong, but sometimes you need to pay more than the calculations suggest if that player is a missing part. In other words the player’s value to us might be greater than to others and greater than any stale calculation might produce. If you’ve just shelled out a relatively large sum on a forward and are looking for another you are presumably interested in someone that will help bring out the best in the first. If that means going a little further than you want to in order to land that player, it’s good sense to do so. Nothing has intrinsic value. I did once interview Jack Charlton who said he asked Sir Alf Ramsey why he picked him for England as he (Charlton) thought there were better centre-halves available. Seems Ramsey told him that he had the best defender in the world in Bobby Moore and needed a type of player alongside him and that Charlton was the best available of that type. That’s always been a lesson for me in how you build a team (I promise, no more old fogey anecdotes, at least not for now).

And I’m delighted that Morrison has decided to stay with us. He’s had my vote for player of the season for the past two campaigns (which is no slight on the actual recipients). Him staying will only strengthen us, without him we would have needed another leader for the defence. Wood’s decision to leave for Rotherham, following Dervite and Cort, obviously leaves us very thin in central defence, but nothing more on that front can be said until we see the cut of who comes in to replace them.

Confirmation of Poyet’s departure was of course the bad news of the week. Barring some unlikely statement from him to the contrary even I wouldn’t blame Duchatelet for that. This was a case of the legacy of the previous owners coming home to roost. Whether more could have been done earlier to tie him down is a moot point, but there’s no evidence to support any such thoughts. I suspect most of us thought from the moment that Buyens got on the eurostar that the club knew he was off, given the descriptions of the player coming in. Am curious though where this leaves Cousins. Some have criticised Sir Chris for not bringing Poyet in sooner, but I doubt that they were there on the training ground to make any such assessment. Powell gave him his debut and a chance when he felt Poyet was ready. To say he grabbed it with assurance is something of an understatement. But it wasn’t much before then that Cousins was getting the rave reviews as a defensive central midfielder. It’s not his fault that subsequently being played wide(ish) right left him peripheral. With Buyens coming in will Cousins be able to get back into the role that he was performing so well?

I even don’t mind acknowledging that Peeters came across well in his press interview. He seemed intelligent, sensible, grounded, and ambitious, actually answered questions rather than giving predictable, bland replies. At least he knows the score when it comes to what’s expected of him and how things will operate with the owner. A pleasing first impression.

Does this all sound that I’m going soft re Duchatelet, even perhaps warming to the ‘vision’? Not a bit of it. One of the problems of history is that for every true visionary (ie those that really thought out of the box and changed the world – and are remembered and revered for it) there are a million who believed themselves to be of the same ilk. Nobody remembers them. One of the problems of being opposed to our owner’s ‘vision’ for the club is that you lay yourself open to the charge of being resistant to change, stuck in your ways, refusing to embrace ‘new concepts’. I don’t believe that’s true, at least not in this case. The vision, as I understand it, simply has no appeal and involves too great a compromise of the club – and this coming from an open European federalist (with certain conditions). Rightly or wrongly I regard our club as degraded by being part of a consortium, the ultimate goal for which remains entirely open to speculation. It’s not (for me) the role that a football club serves. I have absolutely nothing against Ghoochannejhad; equally I am absolutely indifferent to the fact that he has played and scored in a World Cup. He is a loan player passing through.

So all good things comes to an end and one day the World Cup will be over (for the record I’m rooting for Colombia or Costa Rica but publicly am duty-bound to back France; I know which side my bread’s buttered). So eventually do bad things. One day Duchatelet will no longer own our club. Unless by then I’m kicking up daisies I’ll still be around, whatever state/division we are in.

Oh Eddie, Your Country Needed You

Oh, we can talk about and bemoan the fact that England don’t (yet) have the cohesion and precision in the final third or a defence that doesn’t cough up at least a few good chances against decent opposition. But if there’s one player we needed last night, who I’m sure would have made himself available if asked, it was the inestimable Eddie Youds. I could be wrong, but I very much doubt that Suarez would have enjoyed such a pain-free and ultimately rewarding evening if Eddie had been out there.

If the game is ultimately about playing to your strengths and doing your best to nullify the opposition’s strengths, there was surely a case (albeit one that doesn’t stand the test of the Corinthian spirit) for testing out that knee and the temperament early in the game, take a card for the team just to put in Soares’ head that when he gets the ball there might be more pain coming. But who in the England team was ready and willing to take the responsibility? I don’t care if Gerrard and Suarez are best buddies, a bit of roughing up in an unthreatening area might have helped the cause.

My favourite memory of Eddie (aside from the stories I was told by a mate who frequented a watering hole graced by his presence) was a home game against Arsenal at The Valley. Now I think most people would accept that Bergkamp could play a bit and that evening for the first 20 minutes or so of the game he led us a merry dance. Perhaps Eddie was a bit jaded, the bones creaking a bit, and nobody was cutting off the supply to Bergkamp. So it was time to put a stop to the nonsense. Stayed on his feet but a raking tackle from behind with what looked like a side order of studs down the back of the leg, followed by a shrug of indifference (that may be poetic license). Eddie got the appropriate lecture from the ref. Bergkamp lasted another five minutes or so before deciding this was a contest he didn’t have the appetite for and hobbled off. I don’t even remember the final score, but job done.

My French partner Suzanne will have none of this. She will still hear no criticism of Zidane for his head-butting of Materazzi, viewing his act as a noble response to unacceptable provocation rather than him having been conned into doing exactly what Materazzi wanted him to. Me? I don’t think I’m amoral but actually love the mental side of sport, the sledging in cricket, the way that Brian Moore used to wind up the French in every scrum. If an opponent has mental weaknesses they are there to be exploited in the same way as physical/technical deficiencies. It’s then up to the ref to decide whether the rules of the game have been breached (and if so to what extent).

All I can say in response to Suzanne’s moral outrage is let nobody pretend that the great Bobby Moore didn’t know about this side of the game and could take care of himself (and others when necessary). The facts that he also looked angelic and was a world-class defender helped his cause. Jack Charlton was just a little more obvious with his little book of names. Nobby Stiles I don’t think bothered to write them down as everyone was a legitimate target.

Meanwhile, we continue to wait. For (hopefully positive) outcomes regarding Morrison and Poyet and confirmation of new signings. And to the best of my knowledge we still wait for the board to deliver on its pledge to hold meetings with supporters groups. I hope that we won’t be informed (or just left to conclude) that ‘with pre-season coming up and so much to be done regarding player ins and outs there still just isn’t the time, even though we want to, even though we want to communicate, even though we so value the wonderful supporters of this great club …..’

Playing The Odds

Seems these days people can’t even pass comment on our unappealing new kit without being accused of being a Duchatelet apologist or a serial moaner, or even worse some sort of inane ‘glass half-full/half-empty sort of a bloke’. Perhaps best to stick to what we know and what from that we can reasonably infer. Suffice to say that the exceptional level of criticism of our new owner isn’t down to a number of us having some collective attack of the moaning minnies, it’s because what is happening is unprecedented, an experiment which may or may not work (even if we were able to agree on a definition of what constitutes it working from our perspective as fans). Perhaps that’s bound to polarise opinions.

We know that Bob Peeters is our new ‘head coach’. We all of course hope that he proves to be a blinding success, but let’s park that for a minute. None of us were surprised that the new guy is Belgian. So unless Duchatelet had some change of heart when it came to the terms offered to the head coach, ie dropping the elements that Sir Chris clearly found unacceptable, the appointment was a matter of selecting a Belgian prepared to accept these terms (on a one-year deal). I don’t know how many ‘candidates’ these parameters leave you with, but it isn’t being unduly negative to point out that the pool of talent meeting the criteria has to be significantly smaller than without such restrictions.

We know that Katrien Meire was quoted on the club site as saying that Jose Riga was a “very serious candidate” for the post but that “with a number of strong candidates we had a difficult decision to make to choose between them”. We also know that Peeters was quoted on the club site as saying that “the owner contacted me and asked if I was prepared to take the job”. The Red Robin rather beat me to it in highlighting what might appear to be something of a contradiction here. My dictionary definition of ‘candidate’ is “one who applies to be chosen for an office, position”. If we feed in what Alex Dyer said in his interview with the South London Press about how players since the takeover were selected, what is reasonable to infer is that aside from Riga all other ‘strong candidates’ were totally unaware that they were being ‘considered’. It’s reasonable to state that in the real world they were not candidates at all.

I have absolutely nothing against Belgians and really don’t care that Peeters played for Millwall. It isn’t a Dennis Wise situation. But to say that Peeters’ task looks a tough one isn’t being negative. He will have to get the full support of players old and new who will at least suspect that he didn’t choose to sign them and who may not have a free hand when it comes even to picking the team. I hope he has the character to achieve this.

I don’t mind admitting that, irrespective of the circumstances of his appointment, I did Riga a disservice in dismissing him as a ‘yes’ man when he came in. He did as good a job as anyone could have done, by harnessing the team spirit and by largely (but no, not completely) ignoring the players dumped on us in January. In her statement of thanks to Riga Meire noted that “he faced an extremely difficult job in keeping our club in the Championship, having to do so with a number of our young academy players”. Just how does that square with previous comments from the board to the effect that ‘we knew we had to strengthen the team in January’ and the fact that we sold three first-choice players that month? If the board want us to be positive can we please stop being fed obvious b/s.

For a sense of perspective on Riga, he didn’t ‘save us’ from relegation but made a very important contribution to that end, as did the players. Perhaps his best decision was to listen to Dyer (if the contents of his interview are to be believed, and I have absolutely no reason not to) saying that there was enough in the dressing room to avoid relegation and to make decisions that have ended up enhancing his personal reputation as a manager (it will be interesting to see how he fares at Blackpool, if that goes through). Whether these decisions – and a feeling that he was more his own man than I hastily concluded – ended up ruling him out of staying at Charlton only one person knows (and it isn’t Riga himself).

On the playing/staff front, we have seen Hamer and Dervite take up what were obviously better options for them than we put in front of them (they, along with the other departures – and of course the rightly revered Colin Powell – go with our best wishes). We wait to see whether Morrison and/or Poyet will stay. We’ve also seen enough reports/comments to suggest that an attempt to sign Barnsley’s O’Grady have foundered on wages. It’s not unreasonable to infer from this that, in line with the stated Duchatelet goal of getting us to (or as close as possible to) a breakeven financial position asap (and possibly linked to this the supposed vision that we are merely moving ahead of the curve when it comes to an FPR-driven adjustment in Championship finances) we are offering deals to players that compare poorly with at least the bulk of Championship teams, which at least suggests that as and when these players have alternatives they will be inclined to take them.

That, like the parameters restricting the choice of a new head coach, restricts the available pool of talent that we can compete for. The pool of course may end up being big enough to produce at least a competitive Championship team/squad. The signing of Zak Ansah may prove to be a case in point. I hope so.

All of this isn’t being unduly negative, as the result of some personal bias (anyone who actually did their homework on this blog – and I wouldn’t advocate it as I trust we all have far better things to do with our time – would find criticism from me of people leaving early, booing, howling at every misplaced pass etc and of me for giving far too generous player ratings as I just want them to be worldbeaters). As an Englishman (and Briton/European) and a football fan of course I’m looking forward to the World Cup. Weeks of solid footie on the box, bring it on. As for England, there are good grounds for optimism regarding prospects over the next four years, given plenty of developing talent, and of course I hope we do well in Brazil. Just suffice to say I’d want substantially better odds than 25/1 to put money on us to win the thing as just about every material factor argues against such an outcome. Can we win it? Of course it’s possible. Just highly unlikely – and believe it or not the outcome won’t be influenced by our level of optimism/pessimism pre-tournament. Equally, if I were a Derby fan I’d probably still be feeling gutted over the Championship play-off final but by now thoughts might be turning to the fact that there’s every reason to believe they will be there or thereabouts at the end of next season and that if promoted at the end of it they will probably be in better shape to compete in the Premiership than if they went up.

Bookies aren’t risk-takers; they only set the odds and offset in a fashion that delivers acceptable returns. Before Peeters’ appointment I printed out a few bits with a view to a post and never got around to it. One was that PaddyPower had us at 40/1 to win the Championship, on a par with Sheff Wed, Brentford and Birmingham and shorter odds than Millwall, Blackpool and Huddersfield (Rotherham hadn’t made it into the Championship then). SkyBet had us at 40/1 (only Blackpool at 66/1 were longer odds), and on 14/1 to get promotion (here too only Blackpool had longer odds). For relegation SkyBet had us at 9/4, the same as Millwall and Huddersfield (Blackpool were 13/8). Since then nothing has shifted. SkyBet has us joint-third favourites for relegation (with Huddersfield and Millwall with Blackpool and Rotherham the shorter odds).

The point isn’t that the bookies are geniuses and we’re sure to be headed for another relegation struggle, but rather that there isn’t, as yet, good reason to believe this won’t be the case. Peeters may prove to be an outstanding manager, we may retain the waverers and sign a clutch of good new players and have a great season. I hope for these things, but right now the evidence to support such hopes is absent.

Something else still absent. Lest it be forgotten, in late March Meire said in a ‘message to Charlton fans’ that “since we arrived at the club in January we understood the importance of interaction with Charlton supporters”, that “we (the board) are keen to meet with supporters to hear their views and discuss a shared vision for the future of this great club”, but also that “it is currently an extremely busy time”. I may have missed something, there may be efforts underway behind the scenes to convene meetings of which I am unaware. Otherwise each passing day without the convening of meetings – most obviously with the Trust but also other groupings, including the Royal Oak Group – only pushes us further in the direction of concluding that genuine communication to address fans’ concerns isn’t just not a priority but rather an unwanted inconvenience. No amount of staged interviews will suffice.

Finally (I’ve left this to last to ensure that anyone wishing to object had first to suffer the ramblings above), to those who feel qualified to cast judgement on who is and who is not an Addick, I’d like to state another two facts. First, I’ve been a Charlton supporter all my conscious life and nothing will change that, yet I don’t think for a moment that gives me any reason to talk in terms of who is or is not an Addick. Second, some supporters, however many (clearly I am one of them), felt disgusted and alienated by what has happened since the takeover.

We need more Addicks, not less. I’m tempted to think (not on the basis of any evidence it’s true) that one factor behind the previous owners’ evaporation of commitment to us was disappointment over the crowd size on our return to the Championship. We averaged 17,485 in the promotion season (with a high of 26,749). In the first year back in the Championship we managed an average of 18,499, despite higher away support and more attractive fixtures. Last season we averaged 16,134 (with a top attendance of 23,600), or 59.5% of capacity. I can’t say whether the new season ticket pricing arrangements will be the answer, but any efforts to increase attendance are to be welcomed (we can’t ignore the possible impact on floating fans of West Ham’s move). I just wonder why as things stand such efforts are not extended to address other facts.

Why 'Move On' When The Direction Sucks?

I may not (yet) be on the nine-month (or permanent?) sabbatical that some have been calling for, but I do feel in need of one after two weddings and a party in seven days (in Oxfordshire, Sussex and Lyon respectively). Timing is everything they say. So when a niece opts to get spliced on the final weekend of the season, obliging my partner Suzanne’s family to put back a party by a week (which proved to be a blessing in disguise according to them, as it chucked down on the original date), and then a mate opts to tie the knot in between, somewhere out in the sticks, you know somebody’s trying to mess with you. They did a good job, especially as the final leg(s) involved getting back to London and home half-cut around midnight to pack and get up in time to get across town for an 06.18 Eurostar/TGV to arrive (late) for a party at which decorum required at least giving the impression of being sober at the start. Fortunately Suzanne was on hand to fulfil that role.

Have the diversions and a little time helped with some fresh perspective regarding my negativity towards our new owner and his ‘vision’ (and actions)? Well, no, at least not to the extent of budging – ‘moving on’ if you like, but if the direction you are being dragged in looks like going over a ravine staying put may be the sensible option, ahead of information to the contrary. We are of course all waiting for news regarding whether or not Riga returns, on how many players opt to walk or are sold, and in what sort of fashion a new team is put together. Personally I’m waiting most of all for the outcome of the promised meetings with supporters groups for them to air prevailing concerns. Those weren’t considered enough of a priority to be held before the end of the season and (unless I’ve missed something) now play second-fiddle to holidays and the outcome of Standard Liege’s Champions League qualification effort. Of course perhaps the board is hoping that avoiding relegation means that they can be quietly shelved indefinitely.

I don’t want to go over old ground, people might get the idea that I’m somehow stuck in my ways. I don’t mind admitting that the journey under Sir Chris was one that I was happy to be on. The football wasn’t often pretty (but did provide some rousing moments/games the memory of which I’ll treasure) and contrary to popular belief I didn’t think he was the greatest manager on the planet; he was (and hopefully soon will be again) a young manager learning his trade, capable of progressing and developing with us. Of course that might have proven not to be the case, but I was happy for us to find out, not least because of the admirable virtues he’d instilled in the team, through his personality and choice of players. I think Riga’s smartest move when coming in, reflected in his recent comments, was to ensure that the spirit and determination was sustained. For that he and the players deserve considerable credit. We can only hope that the next crop of players have similar qualities.

That journey/chapter is indeed over. The problem now is that everything we know and can reasonably infer about the next one fills me with dread. Perhaps, given that the best I can now ‘hope’ for is a draw in our bet (which would require circumstances that I really don’t want to come to pass), and may well end up handing over to him a bottle of his choice, it’s useful to address what Wyn Grant wrote in Voice of the Valley regarding the new regime. The piece was, as to be expected, reasoned and fair. Where we seem to differ is on emphasis and the balance of doubt.

Wyn noted that he felt there were mistakes made in the January transfer window. I think that’s an understatement. They were dreadful howlers, moves which led me to conclude at the time that our new owner was nothing more than an asset-stripper as there seemed no other reasonable explanation. Either Duchatelet made the decisions himself, in which case he presumably believes he knows better than others about football (especially Championship football), or he was advised by someone he trusts but obviously understood little of our circumstances. But calling the moves mistakes at all is only possible from the point of view of a primary objective of strengthening the team. From Duchatelet’s perspective, we stayed up and he cut his outlays, getting transfer fees and shipping in people who were in any event paid by his consortium. In that context the changes involved risk, given the financial implications of relegation, but if your priority is to move asap towards balancing the books they can be justified. Even this kind interpretation (rather than simply gross ignorance/arrogance) says something about the goals of our owner.

Wyn acknowledged that the Duchatelet vision may not be utopian and may not work. Again, our only disagreement here is the emphasis. For me, it is a sterile and utterly unappealing vision – and this comes from an avowed European federalist. Just what constitutes it working? I’m inclined to suspect it means us making no net drain on Duchatelet’s finances (and ideally – for him - a positive flow) and an increased pool of available players, especially developing players, to shunt around at will to the benefit of the consortium rather than Charlton per se. I may be wrong here of course. Perhaps Duchatelet will decide that the net worth of his consortium is maximised by a drive to get us into the Premiership, which would presumably involve us being sold/loaned first-choice Standard Liege players. Perhaps. Then again he could change his mind.

There’s no concept of the owner being driven by what is best for Charlton per se and further moves which are not in our interest seem inevitable. We were told we ‘must accept’ players going to Standard Liege. I didn’t when he said this and still don’t. The drive to strengthen the academy has been almost universally welcomed and viewed as a real positive under Duchatelet. I hope it turns out that way, rather than a feeding centre for the consortium. Some may see no real difference between developing young players and accepting selling some on, which has been going on as long as I’ve been an Addick, and the new set-up. I think the difference is considerable, as under the former sales were made in the interest of our club per se.

Also, I’m no fan of the fair play rules. Whether or not they end up getting thrown out by the courts, they seem to me an ill-conceived and unnecessary attempt to address perceived ‘problems’ where none really exist (or rather where they do exist are already dealt with, albeit sometimes with negative consequences for individual clubs). I’m no expert on the thinking behind them, but they seemed to arise at a time when there was concern that with Man City joining Chelsea and Man Utd in terms of financial clout the Champions League could end up being dominated by English clubs with an ‘unfair’ financial advantage. Leaving aside why the authorities felt moved to act now, when clubs like Real Madrid have benefited from ‘unfair’ support from their cities/regions for decades, the fact that since then PSG have hopped on the bandwagon and that English teams are not dominating the Champions League suggest the need for FPR is questionable at best. Just how FPR morphed into trying to impose an unwanted structure for all leagues beats me. Perhaps it was just a cover to hide the real motivation.

Wyn noted in his piece that the Duchatelet vision at least puts us in the vanguard of a European trend. Being to the fore – or rather trying to take advantage of – a set of unnecessary and unfair rules which I believe will end up being either thrown out or circumvented does not fill me with joy.

Wyn also quite fairly pointed out that those, including me, who feel nothing but disgust and dread at what we have learnt to date about life under Duchatelet have yet to come up with some better alternative and that without one things could have been a lot worse. Fair enough, I’m certainly not privy to what went on from the time the previous regime made the decision to put the club up for sale and the takeover. But there are clues. When Voice of the Valley published its article on a prospective sale and the related document, it was in terms of a sale for £40m-plus. The previous owners had to spend months ratcheting down their asking price and would presumably have had to continue to do so. No-one can know whether this would have unearthed potential buyers at a yet lower price or whether administration might have resulted, but I’m inclined to believe the former, just because it would have made more financial sense for the old owners to continue to cover the monthly losses while lowering their asking price to try to flush out other buyers.

We could of course have been bought by someone/something based on a plan for a forced move from The Valley, something which the alleged sale document alluded to. But is this likely? Anyone coming in would surely have been aware (or made aware) of the history on this front. A move away from The Valley under whatever circumstances would have resulted in mass supporter defections, seriously undermining the case for a purchase (unless a new owner concluded that he/she could still make enough by accepting the football club ending up being run down/shut down). In other words, the Back To The Valley campaign would have made any prospective owner at least very, very wary.

That does raise a related question. One comment from the previous post asked a fair question as to whether I was as disgusted by the sacking of Parkinson as that of Powell, with the suggestion that both were pretty much a case of new owners installing a new man. The answer is I wasn’t. I was surprised at the time, was far from convinced it was the right move, and was concerned about what might come next. That pales in comparison with disgust at the dreadful hand Sir Chris was dealt by the old and the new regime and respect and admiration for the way he coped (and that disgust is only intensified if the recent report that he is still waiting for his settlement is true). In any event, it reminded me that when Parkinson went the bookies installed Dennis Wise as the odds-on favourite to succeed him. I don’t know if they had inside information or were just putting two and two together given previous ties, but is it also possible that the outpouring of opposition from Charlton fans to the idea of Wise taking over was material in the owners not going down that road? If Jiminez/Slater had appointed Wise, should our appropriate response have been ‘oh well, they own the club now, we should support them/give them the benefit of the doubt’ etc?

So I’m still sitting, waiting, not budging, not moving on if you like. I’ve been surprised by some blogs/comments expressing optimism over the prospect of some investment in quality new players heralding a positive new era. It’s possible of course, but where is the evidence to believe that we will be investing in quality players (quality in the context of the Championship)? The goal is to break-even and that isn’t going to put us among the highest payers in the division, where the club is going remains uncertain, so why should a quality player choose to come to us? Rather the reverse appears to be the case. Whatever the pros and cons of the possible departures of Hamer, Morrison and Dervite, and Poyet, in these cases it appears that the player involved is assessing whether their interests will be best served by moving on, if so to a higher-paying and/or more likely to prosper club. We shouldn’t be cynical about this relating to higher pay as no doubt we would do the same. And as indicated by Morrison’s recent comments, they have done us service. If they go they go with our best wishes, with the same applying to Hughes (no issue there), Green and Evina.

Trouble is I’m not really sure what might come out of the board and supporters meetings that might materially ease my concerns. Duchatelet isn’t about to change tack. Perhaps what might count is some insight into just why he wants to own football clubs, what is his real motivation and objective. I want something to believe in. I feel that we had that (which is not to overlook the adverse aspects of the former regime). For sure it’s gone, but please tell me what are the positive aspects of what seems to be on offer now (other than that we continue to exist, in a fashion).