Cronky

With the way we're financially committed to Premiership football, and the huge financial gap between the Premiership and the Championship, relegation could lead to a Leeds / Sheff Wed - type downward spiral. BUT - I think I know where Afar is coming from. The whole spirit of the club has been bad for the last three seasons. Everyone's discontented that we've slipped from the top four and there's a lot of pressure on the players and the manager. There's high expectations without the means to fulfil them. Sometimes it helps if you slip to a very low point, and then develop some upward momentum from there, as happened with Keegan and Robson.

I can only think that Luque's performances in training are as half-hearted as his perfomances in matches. Therefore Roeder doesn't see him as the answer. There's no question about his ability. Just his attitude.

Like others, I was puzzled by the lateness of the substitution. It was clear that we'd run out of steam and needed fresh legs, and that Solano was the most tired. We showed a bit of spirit but looked nervous. Unsurpisingly due to the strikeforce, we never looked remotely like scoring from a cross or a corner.

'If Mr Shepherd will have me' - umm.... doesn't the manager make those kind of decisions? Nice to know that the tea lady is rising to the challenge as well.

It'll work really well providing Charlton promise not to try and score.

Roeder made me a cup of tea once, and believe me it was rubbish.

Eriksson's career has already peaked. If we do need to change, let's go for someone who's on the way up.

On form, he adds a lot of pace and energy to the side. All his injury problems may have matured him as a person as well, so let's treat this as a new beginning. I think he needs to be given proper rest, in the long as well as the short term. He does a lot of running, often at full pace, and I do wonder whether part of the problem was due to a kind of muscle overload.

It doesn't actually sound like the writer has seen very much of us. He's just repeating little bits and pieces of what he's heard, rather than coming up with any original insights.

I think he's a good coach, and despite what often gets said, I think he's okay as regards the basics of tactics, team selection and motivation. My main concern about him is how we will cope when (as now) things aren't going so well and the pressure's on. He seems the sensitive sort and may get demoralised. We shall see. There are other big factors around - mainly the Chairman's manner of running the club, and the motivation behind appointing from within rather than looking outside.

A completely incoherent ramble.

.............. and to get someone in who would be qualified for that role? Possible I suppose. I don't believe for a moment that it would be too little too late though. More a case of better late than never imho. I don't have strong feelings either way about the Director of Football role. But I think the Manager should still be in charge, with the Director acting as a help to him. Two bosses wouldn't work. It's also important that any appointment like that is made for the right reasons ie as a genuine help to the manager. If it's some roundabout way of restricting the Chairman's room for manoevre then I think you'll end up with problems. Likewise if it's a way of disempowering the manager. As for too little too late, who knows. An appointment like that is a long-term strategy, not a short-term fix. We've had minor relegation scares over the last two seasons, and this time luck might be against us.

Coming as this idea does from the Halls, it may be an attempt to belatedly get Shepherd away from meddling on the football side. It's a possible sign of a rift between the club's joint owners. It may be too little too late though.

It's interesting that he's piped up with the Director of Football idea in such vague and hopeful terms. There may be a recognition on the part of the Halls that most of the damage is being done by Shepherd's over-involvement in football matters. It may be a not so subtle move to prize him away from player transfer and even manager selection issues. I can't see any reason why Shepherd would want a Director of Football, as it's a role that he's been eager to perform himself, albeit with catastrophic results.

Roeder isn't even lower league standard, never mind good. The mess on Aug 31 showed that amply. Shepherd and Roeder are the Disatrous Duo, Fatman and Roeder. :roll: Yes, but whose mess was it? It's made explicit in Sir Bob's book, and it's been backed up by strong indications with Souness and Roeder, that all the manager is allowed to do is give the Chairman a list of the players he wants. The setting of priorities within that list, timing of bids, the amount of bids, is in the Chairman's hands. The manager is only one of a number of people who Shepherd consults. No top manager would put up with that. No manager can make a success in such a crucial area, operating in that way.

No-one's saying that Roeder's perfect, but there's a wider picture here. The most important thing that any Chairman has to do is to find the best possible manager available. He then has to financially back that manager's decisions about staff and players to the best he can, with the resources available. Those are the basics. Shepherd hasn't done that. He intervenes far too much in transfer activity, not trusting his manager's judgements. Look at Sir Bob's book for details. He also seems to be determined to give the job to Shearer at some stage, and to give him some kind of role in the club in the interim. That's a big deterrent to good managerial candidates. The greatest managers in the world would not be able to function in those circumstances. If they are responsible for results, they have to be given full control over the means to get those results. No organisation functions well when power and responsibility are divided off like that.

I disagree that we should have a manager who already has some affinity with the club. In fact, that's the kind of thinking that we need to get away from. I'd agree with BD. There needs to be a change at Boardroom level first, because I don't think anyone can succeed under our meddling Chairman. Then, at the time, look at the position on the football side, and decide whether a change is beneficial there as well. It's very unfair to heap the blame on Roeder for our current position.

I agree. The article talks about Shepherd's inability to appoint and keep a decent manager, but ignores the prime reason behind it. It seems to me that no reporter or fanzine will dare question Shearer's part in all of this. The only people that have piped up about this - Gullit and Kluivert - are safely away on the continent. The guy must be incredibly hard!

Yes, he'd be ideal if we were a small club in the top division, wanting to play good football, with no financial resources, for several seasons. But we're not. Although we're not as big as we think we are, we're massive compared to charlton, and the transition from small club to bigger club isn't always a happy one. Whereas he might excel in a no money tight budget low-expectations scenario, he might suck arse at the money-to-spend high-expectations bit. Every single top manager - whether it be Mourinho, Ferguson or whoever - has had to go through the transition that you're talking about there. There's no guarantees, but there's no better indication of a person's ability to handle a big club than their ability to handle a smaller club beforehand. And managers like Mourinho, Ferguson etc had managed to win something at their small clubs which gave them the step up. Has Curbishley managed to win something at his small club? In 10 ****ing years? Is he a winner? The fact is that no team outside the current big four has won either the League or the FA Cup in the past 10 years. The only trophy that's remotely available to clubs like Charlton is the League Cup. If you're dismissing Curbishley's credentials on those grounds, that's scarcely fair. I'm not saying Curbishley is the only or best possible candidate. But realistically we have to look at a manager who's taking a step up, not a step down or sideways.

I like Curbishley, but I can't see him linking up with the present regime. He had a very good relationship with the Chairman at Charlton, and was given a free hand to shape the club according to his own views. Fred likes to be involved in the football side too much. I could see Curbishley getting involved with new owners though, like O'Neill at the Villa. He's a man who would think to the long-term and want to give things an overhaul from top to bottom. I've heard it said that there's a lack of good British managerial talent at the moment, but I don't agree. Curbishley is one of several - including Moyes, Coleman, Jewell, Hughes - who could do a good job for us. O'Neill was my first choice, but that opportunity has well and truly gone. I feel sorry for Roeder, who in the circumstances has done a good job since taking over. But he hasn't the power base within the club to make the impact that is needed.

Yes, he'd be ideal if we were a small club in the top division, wanting to play good football, with no financial resources, for several seasons. But we're not. Although we're not as big as we think we are, we're massive compared to charlton, and the transition from small club to bigger club isn't always a happy one. Whereas he might excel in a no money tight budget low-expectations scenario, he might suck arse at the money-to-spend high-expectations bit. Every single top manager - whether it be Mourinho, Ferguson or whoever - has had to go through the transition that you're talking about there. There's no guarantees, but there's no better indication of a person's ability to handle a big club than their ability to handle a smaller club beforehand.

What's the problem with Curbishley? I would really like someone to explain this. It can't be his record. He's kept a small club in the top division, playing good football, with no financial resources, for several seasons. What's more at one point that club was bankrupt and not even playing on their own ground. Curbishley comes across as very calm and sensible. His comments about the game are very astute, and he clearly has confidence in his own ideas. His teams always look very positive, relaxed and motivated. I think the problem with Curbishley seems to be his quietly-spoken image. He's not a teacup-thrower, and he doesn't lose his cool. To assume that he lacks passion or the ability to motivate would be a mistake. It's all about instilling confidence in players and that's not about being a loudmouth.

Yeah, I think you're trying to find a pattern that isn't there. After Robson, he's just stumbled from one bad decision to another.

Dirty little fornicator who has done us a lot of damage in the past, but what a player. Giggs also seems to be playing the best football of his career at the moment.

These comments about Curbishley remind me of some of the daft remarks about O'Neill a few months back. What do you expect him to achieve with a club like Charlton? They're a club the same size as Hull, or Millwall, or QPR. Keeping them comfortably in the top division, with no sugardaddy to help them out, was a great achievement.