CAST are not only undemocratic & unrepresentative - please add "dishonest" as well.
Undemocratic - who elected them to their positions? When was the ballot ? Who took part ? How many voted ? Where is the evidence?
Unrepresentative - despite the widespread publicity their stunts have attracted, they still have less than 5% of Charlton's supporter base on their membership list.
Dishonest - when they recruited members last year, they blatantly lured the gullible by calling out "sign here if you want to stop coucil flats being built on the Valley"- a brazen whopper told to boost membership numbers. I saw this with my own eyes at the CAST stand behind the Covered End. It was subsequently admitted by the CAST politburo and Dear Leader For Life Kim Yong Raz.
Thanks for that RV. Here's some facts and an alternative view.
1. The board was approved by the SGM that established the Trust, and then formally by a quorate SGM in June 2013. I am uncertain as to the process regarding changes, presumably AGMs, but the board members/officers would be elected for a minimum of 12 months anyway. Meeting minutes are published in the members' section on the website (although it is fair to observe that the SGM minutes are noted as pending). Accounts are published there too, fyi.
2. The Trust can only
seek to be representative, which is evidenced in the high volume of surveys they have conducted to date and available for all fans to complete. If fans choose not to participate that's up to them, but that's one mechanism by which a voice can be heard. Another, of course, is through being a subscriber, or even more so by being a member.
3. Estimates of Charlton's supporter base are just that - estimates. Notwithstanding if you were to go by the number of season ticket holders, for example, members would perhaps be in the 10-15% bracket, which is usually deemed to be a representative sample. The fanbase is of course wider than that - perhaps there are 20,000 on the club's mailing list? - but then there are also those who are Trust subscribers without being paid members.
4. The more Charlton fans who are members, the more representative the Trust will become. We can stand on the sidelines and complain, but the solution is within our gift - it's up to us to make the difference. If you don't like Barnie, join up and vote him out.
5. I think dishonest is a bit strong (as is your personal abuse of the chair). I agree that they were a little misleading in their headlines regarding the ACV, and I and others challenged them directly on this. You can see this on a CL thread if you want to search for it, and I can tell you I made private representations to more than one board member on that issue. It was clearer in the body of the supporting text and they did subsequently back off a little on the headlines.
I'll repeat what I've said many times. I think an organisation seeking to represent all supporters is a good thing. On the assumption they will represent the majority view, and on the evidence and in my own personal conversations with them they're genuinely trying to do this, this is democracy in action.
They're not perfect, not by any means, but the will is there and the structure is there. It's also very early days for them, it's one of the youngest trusts out there and without any real issue they've done exceptionally well in terms of their membership numbers (take a look at other Trust memberships if you want to put it into context).
They will evolve and this will best be achieved by people joining them. The more that join them, the more likely they are to be representative. Those that stand on the sidelines and whinge risk their voice not being heard.
Finally, no individual should expect any organised body - particularly one seeking to be democratic - to represent their own personal views 100%. They will look to represent the majority. That's realistic, and it's right.