Curbs looks back on time at Charlton

A recent edition of Four Four Two has a double page spread interview with Alan Curbishley.

He states: 'After that first promotion to the Premier League, we made a joint decision that of whatever money we took from that season, a third would go on the squad, a third on the stadium and a third would be back-up money if we got relegated.  You see teams relegated from the Premier League having a mass exodus because they can't afford the players' contracts.   That plan meant we didn't have to sell anyone.  We could invest in the squad and we came back up as champions.'

'All of the players we brought to the club had a point to prove.  We never bought the ready-made Premier League player until later.   It ended up working to our detriment a little bit because once we got to that 40 point safety mark, we tailed off from some really good positions.'

'The closest we came to Europe was in 2003/4.  I'm sure we would have finished in the top four or five if Scott Parker hadn't joined Chelsea in January.  We got £12 million, but so late in the window I couldn't spend it.'

Curbs says he didn't get the interviews the other boys did for the England job in 2006, they were interviewed in a private house, he was interviewed in the FA offices because of a timing clash with a FA Cup replay.

In terms of other high profile jobs, Curbs said that he was in a position at Charlton where he was in charge of the whole football club.  He didn't think he was ready for a bigger club, he needed more experience.  He had one year left on his contract and has just been interviewed for the England job.  He wanted his contract to run out - but we all know what happened.

The club's debt to Lennie Lawrence

Lennie Lawrence has stepped back as Hartlepool United coach and taken the No.2 role: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce3lgy17q0ko

However, before this became known Four Four Two published a two page tribute to the Charlton legend in their March issue.   The survival of the club owes much to him.

Lawrence notes that Hartepool asked him to do the job for a month, just like Charlton did 40 years ago. 

The 77-year old says that  'Man management remains the most important thing and there are aspects of it that are the same as they were 30 years ago.   Others are different (he cites social media)and you need to embrace that.'

Lawrence says that he was not particularly abrasive or confrontational back in the day and 'these approaches now wouldn't hold you in good stead.   To use a modern buzzword, you have to show empathy towards players as well as being demanding and having standards - you've got to understand them and help them.'

'Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it - that's the key, there has to be mutual respect.  The first thing I said to the players when I took Charlton over 40 years ago was "I promise I'll be honest with you and I'll try to be fair - I can't always be fair, but I'll try to be honest -that's the starting point.'

What went wrong (6) and the future for Charlton

The ESI episode was so bizarre but also so worrying that it is difficult to sum it up.   Best just to refer back to the court hearing.  This account gives a sense of the confusion: https://addicksdiary3.blogspot.com/2020/09/our-day-in-court.html

A legal action has now been brought against Charlton Athletic in respect of an alleged £500,000 owing to Pauil Elliott in relation to this takeover, but as the matter is now sub judice no further comment is permissible.

The Sandgaard period is very fresh in our memories.  I think that he was well intentioned but naive, a typical example of a businessman successful in another field thinking he can sort out the much more challenging and uncertain world of football.  He under estimated how much getting promoted would cost and, like Roland, involved some unsuitable people in running the club, not least his son.  I am more tolerant than some of his egotistical guitar playing antics.  If you are going to put millions into a loss making business, you are entitled to a bit of fun.

I find it difficult to work out what the strategy of the fragmented present ownership is.  If they want to make money out of Charlton, they should get the club promoted to the Championship and then sell it on as a potential Premier League club.   That requires much more investment than has been forthcoming.

Indeed, apart from Alfie May, it's the old story: use Academy players while they are still developing and see what we can pick up at the end of the transfer window on the cheap or as loan signings.  We were very fortunate with Rak Sakyi last year.

I am sceptical about Charlie Methven whom I think is a slippery customer.  VOTV website editor Rick Everitt has been surprisingly silent on the topic: usually he is first in the queue to denounce a new owner.  However, he may be weighed down by his civic duties.

In my view there were two crucial turning points in our history.   First, and most crucially, the failure to back Jimmy Seed when he wanted to make Charlton the Arsenal of South London by developing The Valley and making marquee signings.  Second, the mess made of the Alan Curbishley succession.  He should have been allowed to stay on for a final year while potential successors were researched.  Instead we got Dowie and his all purpose PowerPoint.

What future for Charlton?

'Charlton till I die' has more meaning for some of us and as a great-grandfather I am unlikely to see the end of this saga, but it may not be a happy one.  Charlton had the third biggest loss in League One in the last accounting period and has one of the biggest debts (£20m).  The ground and the training ground are owned by Roland who is said to want an excessive £50m for them.

So here are three scenarios with probabilities attached:

1. Charlton get promoted to the Championship and are bought by a seriously rich individual who is prepared to spend to get the club in the Premier League.  These days you have to be a billionaire.  20 per cent.

2. Charlton muddle through as a mid-table League One club (perhaps including one season in League Two).  40 per cent.

3. Charlton fall into the National League, the club is no longer viable or sustainable.  Fans form AFC Charlton using a Kent nonleague -ground and entering Step 6 of the non-league pyramid. 20 per cent (and 20 per cent for something I have not anticipated).

The original version recommended reading Dave from Drinking During The Game and some of his posts remain invaluable.  Sadly he passed away not long after this essay was written.

The Charlton line in my family has come to an end.   My granddaughter lives in Spain with her parents and daughter and follows Real Madrid.

What went wrong (5)

 Some Charlton fans think that the Roland era was much better than what followed or went before, although it's not a competitive league.   Steve Sutherland thinks that Charlton fans will rue amtagonising Rolamd and he does still own the stadium and the training ground.

Roland's idea of a network of European clubs was not in principle a bad one and Manchester City have produced a more sophisticated version on a global basis: https://footballeconomyv2.blogspot.com/2019/11/share-sale-puts-high-value-on.html   Indeed, Chelsea have now said they will follow suit.

However, it all went wrong for Roland when he lost the mother ship, Standard Liege, after fans there got fed up with him.  All the other clubs in the network apart from Charlton were third rate at best.

So let's look at the charge sheet against Roland.  He appointed as chief executive a lawyer with no previous experience of football who made errors in negotiating contracts.  She introduced gimmicks like the fan sofa, eventually destroyed by fans.  Nevertheless, she subsequently commanded an annual salary estimated to be £137,000 in a similar position at Sheffield Wednesday.

The really big puzzle is why she made no use of her knowledge of competition law.  Roland believed that his financial model would work because there was bound to be a levelling of the playing field in English football, certainly in the EFL.  Katrien Meire should have told him that any such move would have been open to challenge in the courts umder both domestic and EU competition law.   The Premier League had already had its fingers burnt in a face off with the European Commission in 2006.

One of Roland's first acts was to sell off Yann Kermorgant.   He then foisted on us a series of incompetent players from the continent, advised by someone with a laptop and no football background.  When Chris Powell got us promoted, he failed to back him with sufficient funds.  We then had a rapid succession of managers largely in the range barely adequate to useless.

One of the most effective critques of Roland's stewardship ws provided by Millwall fan Rod Liddle: https://addicksdiary3.blogspot.com/search?q=Liddle+gives+it+large

The barmy Belgian had a great opportunity, but he ended up doing us a lot of harm.

What went wrong (4)

These blog posts are very much a first draft of history and I would like someone with the inside knowledge and contacts to write an authoritative account of the club's history since the departure of Curbs.'

A persistent belief of some Charlton fans is that prospective purchasers of the club are interested in a property play, although, of course, Roland currently owns The Valley and the training ground.  The Valley is a very awkward site for development and it is in South London not North London.   Watching University Challenge last night, I was struck by how many contestants representing UCL and King's Cambridge were from North London.

Conversion or demolition of The Valley would be expensive.  However, the biggest problem is the constrained access which would make planning permission difficult to secure, plus the steep slope on part of the site.

Nevertheless, one group of owners, sometimes referred to in some quarters as 'the spivs' (shurely visionary entrepreneurs, ed) were backed by sufficient cash to contemplate building a soulless functional replacement stadium near the O2.

Read here about the secret plan to leave The Valley: https://www.votvonline.com/home/the-2017-18-blogs/22-12-how-jimenez-schemed-to-leave-the-valley/

There were furher relevations in a court case: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/09/charlton-khakshouri-jimenez-cash-modern-football

In summary, 'a man called Darius Khakshouri was awarded $4m in damages at the Royal Courts of Justice. In Court 9, Mr Justice Green found in favour of Khakshouri and against Tony Jimenez and Kevin Cash after the property developer claimed he had been deceived by the pair over a loan. That loan was of £1.8m, made in the autumn of 2013, in a last-minute bid to keep Charlton Athletic in business

Cash's  business operations based offshore and split between trusts and holding companies. A similarly nebulous structure was found to lie behind Charlton’s ownership during Jimenez’s and Cash’s involvement at the club. In his ruling, Justice Green found that neither Jimenez nor Cash actually owned Charlton, another reason why their representations to Khakshouri had been deceitful.'

In 2019 the Court of Appeal ruled that Jiminez would have to reveal details of his tax affairs: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47075503

Charlton does seem to be attractive to entrepreneurs who fall below the highest standards of propriety.

What went wrong (3)

This is really a bit of a digression, but I felt that something needed to be said about the club's involvement with New Labour when it was in the Premier League.   I am not saying that it was a right or wrong policy, something I can say with confidence as both the Labour and Conservative Governments were interested in my input.  Indeed, I still recall an event at No.10 after I had chaired a commission on elected mayors when Dave Cameron, Bozza and Hezza had a ding dong.

Charlton and Raith Rovers supporters exchange views.   It was like having an intellectual vacuum cleaner attached to you.   After this encounter I was invited to a series of seminars at No.11 during the Blair/Brown transition, but could only go to one, so I probably had a lucky escape.

The most interesting part of Charlton's engagement with New Labour may not be known until papers are released under the 30 year rule (future historians should look at the FCO papers), but for now I thought I would reproduce part of an article I wrote on football for British Politics.

Before doing so, I would like to insert a quote from Rick Everitt on Twitter: 'Hard to make a case that Charlton’s thin connection with Iran distracted the club given the team’s highest Premier League finish was in 2003/04. Bagheri was long gone. A better argument is that later regimes have hidden their incompetence behind a wider agenda or tried to do so.'

It's a valid point, although just how thin the connection was is one of the issues. These blog posts are very much a first draft of history and I would like someone with the inside knowledge and contacts to write an authoritative account of the club's history since the departure of Curbs.'

Charlton Athletic is taken here as an example of the politics of cooption and engagement, describing itself as ‘more than just a football club.’   As Banks notes (2002, 192), ‘The pioneers of supporter activism were undoubtedly the supporters of Charlton Athletic.’   Cooption refers to strategies to involve fans in the agenda of the club, while engagement refers to efforts to relate to contemporary government policy agendas. 

Cooption in the case of Charlton is exemplified by the device of a supporters’ director elected by season ticket holders, although after a process of screening candidates.  However, a supporters’ director is only one voice on the board and is subject to the constraints of commercial confidentiality.   At best, they can act as an ombudsperson for fans, and could be seen by management as a way of conveying their perspective on issues to supporters.

Charlton Athletic has followed what amounts to a conscious strategy of engagement with New Labour policies, although the club would no doubt prefer to describe them as government policies.  New Labour pursued ‘a desire to use mass sport as an instrument of social policy, notably as a way of combating social exclusion and promoting public health.’  (Moran, 2003, 89).   It is no accident that the phrase ‘social inclusion’ appears four times in the club’s latest annual report, along with other buzz phrases such as ‘sustainable’ and ‘successful outputs’.  (Charlton Athletic, 2005, 17-19).

 The club has pursued a multi-level governance strategy at local, regional and national political levels.   Activities such as providing football training for children in the school holidays are perceived as ‘an innovative way of meeting the Government’s social objectives and the new Respect Policy.’  (Charlton Athletic, 2005, 14).  

Gordon Brown with Curbs

For its part the government has sent the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the then Health Secretary ‘and a delegation from the Home Office to discuss how football and sport can improve community cohesion and lead to a healthier and safer environment.’  (Charlton Athletic, 2005, 17).

Unfortunately he chose Aston Viilla over Charlton

 Add in a delegation from the Belgian Government and Prince William and the club can claim:

        Such heavyweight and high profile visits have positioned the club and the

        Community Trust as a highly imaginative pathfinder contribution that can be used

        as an excellent model of best corporate social responsibility practice to roll out on a

        much wider scale in the future.   (Charlton Athletic, 2005, 13-14).

 

What went wrong, Part 2 - the Roland years

In order to understand the Roland years, it is necessary to think about his mentality and what he was trying to achieve.  It wasn't necessarily bonkers, it was poorly designed and executed.  Steve Sutherland thinks that the biggest mistake made by Charlton fans was antagonizing Roland.   I don't agree, but I see where he is coming from.

We need some context and I have to give some personal background.   When I queued for tickets for the Greatest Game, I had to then go to Waterloo to catch a Eurostar to Brussels.  Between the mid 1990s and the late noughties, I was back and forth on Eurostar endlessly, having attended meetings in windowless rooms in Brussels.   In those days it trundled through Kent and it was always heartening to pass somewhere known for Addicktion such as Swanley or Bromley.

In the mid 1990s I was rung up out of the blue by the Cabinet Office and asked if I would represent the UK on a minor European Commission committee.  In time the EU asked me with a few weeks notice to lead a major research project while I was seconded to a UK government department to advise on EU policy,.

I was also sent to represent the EU at a conference in a remote part of China which had more ethnic minorities than Han Chinese.  I was presented with a plate of fried wasps as a great delicacy: fortunately my driver ate them.

Imagine my surprise when I switched on the television and there was a very informative feature on how Curbs and Keith Peacock worked together!

The local television station asked to interview me.  I had a minder from the EU's Beijing office and was ready with a few platitudes about pandas.  To my surprise, they had done their homework and started questioning me about levels of air pollution in Greenwich.

What has all this got to do with Roland and football?   Before the financial crisis the Commission took a great interest in football.  The key figure here was Viviane Reding from Luxembourg who was a commissioner from 1999 to 2014, initially with responsibility for sport and ultimately as a vice-president.   Like many politicians from Luxembourg, she punched about her country's weight in the EU.  I only heard her speak once (in the Grand Duchy) and she hardly set the room alight.

Reding and the Commission had a run in with the Premier League over breaches of cartel law.   Tony Blair got involved and in the end the concessions the Premier League had to make were not that onerous.  (I have written on this elsewhere).

Above all, the Commission saw football as a potential integrating force that could help to develop a European identity.   I am not suggesting that Roland talked to the Commission, but he was 'dans le vent' and could see the way the wind was blowing.   Remember that at one time he tried to set up his own political party.   More follows in the next instalment.

These blog posts are very much a first draft of history and I would like someone with the inside knowledge and contacts to write an authoritative account of the club's history since the departure of Curbs.'