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.'

What went wrong, Part 1

I believe that Charlton could have been far and away the leading South London team.  So what happened?

We were at peak just before and after the Second World War.  We lost some momentum because of the war with Adolf Hitler rumoured to be a secret Millwall supporter as in various online spoofs.

In 1936/7 we finished second behind Manchester City and were the fifth best supported club in the top flight,   We were fourth in 37/8 and third the following year.

After the war we were FA Cup finalists and then winners, a much bigger deal than it is today.   League performances were less impressive, even dangerous, although we made 5th in 52/3.

The small seated stand regularly sold out and produced at least five times as much revenue per fan.  But the owners wouldn't build any more seated accommodation, nor would they fund the marquee signings that Jimmy Seed wanted.

Just before one match my father pointed out Stanley Gliksten surveying the crowd.  'He want to know how much he's taking home today.' commented my father.    In 1954 it was 'proudly' announced that the club was solvent for the first time.  It may not have been a cash cow, but it wasn't a benefactor club.

More like benign neglect and we all know what happened.   Visiting my retired uncle in Belvedere I craned out of the train window for a glimpse of The Valley.   I hoped we would return, but all sorts of forces were against us.

As Curbs has noted, the spell at West Ham was vital in giving us a platform to return to SE7/   It was touch and go whether we survived, but we did and under Curbs we won the Greatest Game.  We came down, but were back again as champions - a joyful day away at Blackburn.

A persistent myth has grown up that fans wanted to get rid of Curbs for a manager to take us to the next level.  The facts are that Richard Murray wanted the manager to sign a three year contract rather than see out the year remaining.

'Too slow to hurry mints' should have realised that even if Curbs had gone after a year it would have given time to properly research replacements.  BTW, I do not know how much the decision was Murray's alone or a collective one of the board.   Either way it was a disaster.

Instead we got Dowie and his famous move north, the board convinced by his PowerPoint.   I first saw him warming up the players on the pitch, fixing them with what he thought was a hypnotic stare.   I thought this isn't rocket science, this is a rocket that blows up on the launch pad.

After the Les Reed interlude, we got Alan Pardew.  I thought at the time that it was a good appointment. How wrong I was.   We did manage to get off the ground, but it was a bumpy ride and ended with a crash landing.   He is now managing in the Greek Super League.   Worse was to come.

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.'

When I reported for Charlton

With Rick Everitt seeking Florida sun, I was the club website reporter in 1997.  I ended up in some odd locations (Witney Town's ground no longer exists, and the same applies to Rushden & Diamonds): https://wyngrant.tripod.com/Volume2.html

Revisiting the 7-6 win

Charlton's 7-6 victory over Huddersfield Town is well travelled ground, but an article on the game in the latest Four Four Two contains some new insights.

Such was the lack of interest in the tie that BBC Sports Special decided at the last minute to cancel their coverage.  It was a wet, freezing day and many fans were engaged in last minute Christmas shopping - as we were in Woolwich.

After Derek Ufton dislocated his shoulder in the 21st minute Terriers manager Bill Shankly told his players to go for the throat and they were 2-0 up by half time.

Addicks manager Jimmy Trotter told Johnny Summers to change his boots - they were on the verge of falling apart - and switched him to centre forward.   By the 62nd minute Charlton were 5-1 behind so Trotter switched Summers to outside left.   He then hit four goals in 17 minutes with strike partner Johnny Ryan adding a brace.

The BBC made amends by sending a car to take Summers to their London studio for the evening show.

Referees called for a form of VAR 100 years ago

New technology is always controversial in football, note the row this week when a goal from Coventry City was shown not to have got fully across the line.

As I have noted in earlier articles [for the Leamington FC programme], tensions between football crowds and referees were on the increase in 1922.  In the Leamington area the police had to be called on more than one occasion to evict spectators who had abused the referee.  It was also claimed that crowds had started chants which questioned the capacity of the referee to officiate. 

  The Football Association was so concerned that they launched an overall review, but as a first step they decided to ban referees who wore glasses, following a number of complaints about the poor eyesight of some officials.   This caused some confusion at the meeting of the Birmingham FA. Should all referees who had been seen wearing spectacles be struck off the list?  It was eventually decided that it should only apply to new officials.

Writing in one newspaper, referee ‘Solo Whistle’ argued that some sort of X-ray machine might help to resolve disputes on the field of play, clearly anticipating VAR.    What was needed was some scientific means of determining what was intentional and what was accidental.   

Among the incidents where an authoritative decision was needed was ‘when a ball goes to hand, when a player kicks an opponent in playing the ball, and when a player goes down apparently injured, or may be only pretending to be hurt so as to give his side an advantage by temporarily stopping the game.  There is a wide margin of contrast in the attitude of different officials in cases of injury, or supposed injury.  One spectator writes describing an incident in which two opponents went for the ball together, one clearing the ball, and, as he drew his foot back, accidentally kicking the other man in the wind [sic], placing him hors de combat.   The referee’s attention was called, but he ordered play to proceed.  The ball went out of play, whereupon he called the trainer and had the player carried off.   

I am reminded of another case in which a referee ordered play to proceed to the extent of the ball being worked up and down the field, passing the prostate body of the injured man three times before he called a halt after the ball passed over the line.’   Solo Whistle’s conclusion was that ‘Accidents are inseparable from the game of football, and are all in the game.’

In some cases referees were attacked by spectators.   At a game in Scotland between Tullibody and Tulliallan football clubs ‘the referee had an exciting experience.  Attacked by a spectator at the interval, he collapsed in the second half at the game and had to be carried off the field.’   The spectator appeared at Alloa Sheriff Court.  ‘It appeared that he was a supporter of the Tulliallan club, and was evidently dissatisfied with the ruling of the referee.   When the interval came he took the referee by surprise, butted him with his head, broke his artificial teeth and lacerated his mouth.’  It is no surprise that when the referee tried to carry on he collapsed.   

The Sheriff told the defendant that he lacked a sporting instinct and fined him £5 or 30 days in prison.   This is £300 in today’s prices, beyond the pocket of a labourer.