Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 8:41:32 GMT
despite the veneer of decent communications at last we still don't know RD's strategic plan for the club. And in particular his exit plan, which is a pretty key consideration. I don't know what this obsession is with exit plans! I don;t suppose RD knows or even has one. Nor should he. He only bought the club eight or nine months ago and he had a three-tier plan when he did so:- 1. Short-term : to escape relegation 2. Medium-term : to build a side that can compete in the Championship 3. Long-term: to re-establish CAFC as a Premiership club The first was achieved, the second is a work on which he appears to have made considerable progress and the third we shall have to wait and see. All three had an underlying principle, too - to do so prudently and strategically, maximise resources and not to spend recklessly and plunge the club into a life-threatening mountain of debt. Whast's not to like? Why does there have to be a fourth objective in which he plans to sell up and gets the fuck out of it - and why is that a "key consideration"? As for CAFC's communications strategy, it is currently the best it has been in the 50 years I've been following the club. See KM's statement re. transfer deadline day for a recent excellent example. In any good business planning, you'd include a strategy for exiting - preferably profitably. This will be particularly pertinent to RD because he's far from being a young man (he's 68 this year). We should be interested in his exit strategy because it will influence how he handles the club during his ownership. For example, if he wishes to pass a successful club onto his son then his focus will be on long term development and can be a little more patient. Or another example, if it's to sell at a profit within 3 years, he may spend to get us to the Premiership and simply take the highest offer with no concern for the future beyond, which may include incumbering us with horrendous debt - albeit this would be limited by FFP. Or again, if it's a 5 year network plan to make Liege a super Euro club then sell the other clubs, the approach will be different again. I've not seen those objectives and terms stated by RD, so if you can provide the link I'd be grateful to read them in context. Re the comms, I can't comment on the strategy behind it because I've not seen it, but the outcome is welcome. I tend to agree that they're currently brilliantly written, although a strong tinge of PR about them. I don't agree they're better than the openness that surrounded the Murray era, and with the VIP director on board, but certainly a huge improvement on recent times. It is a recent development - it was poor in the first few months - but certainly I'm not complaining.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 9:15:19 GMT
Given that I wrote "I don't know what this obsession is with exit plans. I don't suppose RD knows or even has one. Nor should he," your request for a link to "those objectives and terms stated by RD" is plain facetious. And please stop peddling all this feeder club scaremongering about "a 5 year network plan to make Liege a super Euro club then sell the other clubs". I bet you lie awake at night worrying about what RD would do if the Valley got destroyed by a passing asteroid. It's about as productive as worrying about who might buy the club in five years time. on edit: And as you seem to enjoy facetiousness, let me add thast if the Valley was destroyed by an asteroid, I'm sure there would be an article in VOTV claiming that RD had done it deliberately and fragments of meteorite had been found with 'MADE IN BELGIUM' stamped upon them!
|
|
|
Post by overthetop on Sept 3, 2014 9:18:01 GMT
.......and round and round it goes. Sniping? Having read the original statement again thanks to Sadie, I'm not surprised there's been some against certain indivduals.
"A meeting took place on Wednesday evening prior to the match against Huddersfield Town at The Valley bringing together campaigning Charlton supporters from across the generations".
As I've said before, nothing but a self serving Group (by invitation only) who thought they knew how to deal with RD when in fact all they did was undermine the trust. The Trust members who signed the statement should have resigned from the Trust Board immediately.
"The purpose of the meeting was to try to establish a temporary umbrella group from which to seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club, and if that does not prove possible then to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events".
Again, undermining exactly what the Trust were trying to achieve, with certainly more than 21 'campaigning' supporters.
"In the first instance, the group is seeking an urgent face-to-face meeting with Roland Duchatelet or Katrien Miere in order try to get a better understanding of the owner’s intentions and report back to the wider support".
Surprised they didn't get a response to this "Dear G21, mind your own fucking business, love RD"
I"f we are unable to enter into a useful dialogue with the owner or his representative then it is our intention to call a public meeting in early April to take matters forward"
So no dialogue and no public meeting called subsequently. All piss and wind.
"The group recognises that it cannot direct the owner, but we hope to persuade him of the merits of constructive dialogue with Charlton supporters, with particular reference to the achievements that we have all had working together with the club over the last 25 years".
The arrogance of this statment is incredible - they're telling him he doesn't know what he's doing. Calling for a ST boycott a couple of weeks later is hardly 'constructive'.
".....there are experienced and committed people working behind the scenes to improve it".
Whereas, of course, at the Club, they have nothing but amatuers employed, whose main role is to run the Club into the ground. I notice all bar one of the Ex Fan's Directors are signatories (Henry being the obvious one missing). I can't remeber any of them communicating with the fans when they sat quitely on The Board of CAFC representing our views.
|
|
|
Post by overthetop on Sept 3, 2014 9:26:01 GMT
I don't know what this obsession is with exit plans! I don;t suppose RD knows or even has one. Nor should he. He only bought the club eight or nine months ago and he had a three-tier plan when he did so:- 1. Short-term : to escape relegation 2. Medium-term : to build a side that can compete in the Championship 3. Long-term: to re-establish CAFC as a Premiership club The first was achieved, the second is a work on which he appears to have made considerable progress and the third we shall have to wait and see. All three had an underlying principle, too - to do so prudently and strategically, maximise resources and not to spend recklessly and plunge the club into a life-threatening mountain of debt. Whast's not to like? Why does there have to be a fourth objective in which he plans to sell up and gets the fuck out of it - and why is that a "key consideration"? As for CAFC's communications strategy, it is currently the best it has been in the 50 years I've been following the club. See KM's statement re. transfer deadline day for a recent excellent example. In any good business planning, you'd include a strategy for exiting - preferably profitably. This will be particularly pertinent to RD because he's far from being a young man (he's 68 this year)............... I've not seen those objectives and terms stated by RD, so if you can provide the link I'd be grateful to read them in context. Have you E Mailed RD and asked for them? Try it, he does respond to personal E Mails you know. If it was me, I'd just tell you to either fuck off and mind your own business or give me £25m and you can do what you like with the Club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 10:30:16 GMT
.......and round and round it goes. Sniping? Having read the original statement again thanks to Sadie, I'm not surprised there's been some against certain indivduals.
"A meeting took place on Wednesday evening prior to the match against Huddersfield Town at The Valley bringing together campaigning Charlton supporters from across the generations".
As I've said before, nothing but a self serving Group (by invitation only) who thought they knew how to deal with RD when in fact all they did was undermine the trust. The Trust members who signed the statement should have resigned from the Trust Board immediately.
"The purpose of the meeting was to try to establish a temporary umbrella group from which to seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club, and if that does not prove possible then to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events".
Again, undermining exactly what the Trust were trying to achieve, with certainly more than 21 'campaigning' supporters.
"In the first instance, the group is seeking an urgent face-to-face meeting with Roland Duchatelet or Katrien Miere in order try to get a better understanding of the owner’s intentions and report back to the wider support".
Surprised they didn't get a response to this "Dear G21, mind your own fucking business, love RD"
I"f we are unable to enter into a useful dialogue with the owner or his representative then it is our intention to call a public meeting in early April to take matters forward"
So no dialogue and no public meeting called subsequently. All piss and wind.
"The group recognises that it cannot direct the owner, but we hope to persuade him of the merits of constructive dialogue with Charlton supporters, with particular reference to the achievements that we have all had working together with the club over the last 25 years".
The arrogance of this statment is incredible - they're telling him he doesn't know what he's doing. Calling for a ST boycott a couple of weeks later is hardly 'constructive'.
".....there are experienced and committed people working behind the scenes to improve it".
Whereas, of course, at the Club, they have nothing but amatuers employed, whose main role is to run the Club into the ground. I notice all bar one of the Ex Fan's Directors are signatories (Henry being the obvious one missing). I can't remeber any of them communicating with the fans when they sat quitely on The Board of CAFC representing our views.
world class, pure gold, right out of a Monty Python sketch ..... "We the G21 call for RD to blardy blar blar blar" lol
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Sept 3, 2014 11:15:48 GMT
I was there at the time on the inside and "G21" chose to ignore a supporters organisation with over 1,000 members and 5,000 contacts because they did not want to subsume their identity into a bigger fan based body. In reality the supporters body had weeks not days to make statements and it is indicative of the egos and immaturity that some elements blinked. The club did not blink! I could quote emails sent by Rick Everett... I could post the email I sent to the puppet from Prague! It's not pretty but three members of the Trust board came back to me and said "nice one"! I can respect Reams position because he has never pretended to support this collective. On the other hand Henry, Prague and Airman did.. Until it doesn't suit their egos and agendas. I left the Trust board when I did because the landscape evolved such that I could add nothing...also I was busy with work and family...and I calculated that everything would be determined by whether we stayed up or not... Had we gone down we were in a war zone! Had I stayed it would have gotten extremely messy and quite destructive...in answer to a criticism above which I hear very clearly, one cannot build a fans collective with a relationship with the club if individuals are going after personal targets and trying to score points, particularly if they act in a maverick fashion with no accountability. I'll say it again, I don't care what people did in the last century, if they attack the club and owner when a failing manager was being replaced; if they propose season ticket boycotts against my/our club without consulting fans, if they poor vitriol on the management team then they can can fuck off to Ebbsfleet and join their non-league mates. People with knowledge and connections have a responsibility to act in a mature fashion to help build our club - simples The best post on here since we started 7 years ago one which I don't think there is a lot more anybody can add. I echo every word especially the line where seriosulyred points to things that happened in the last century. It was a major fans victory back then and every Charlton fan I am sure was grateful that teh hard work from those involved took us back home HOWEVER that doesn't mean to say that we need to say tankyou on a daily basis for the rest of our lives. We all know what Henry, Prague and Rick Everitt are after but it will never happen. They have seen a gap in the market, an opportunity if you like to get their toe through the door believing that RD might be on the look at for a connection from the past to keep the fans happy and their actions are basically volunteering themselves to something that hasn't or ever will be requested. The sooner they realise that they are seen as just fans like the rest of us the better.
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Sept 3, 2014 11:43:04 GMT
All in all its complex, it's dynamic, it's our club. I have a view but I know my own weaknesses and I have a way of annoying people...not about me which is why I took a back seat Basically there is a space now for people to work it out - they do or they don't? And then they have to work out the club attitude for genuine partnership... Maybe the club management thinks this is a fecking destraction after all the grief and they get on and simply deliver players, academy, catering etc. What people don't seem to recognise is that if you have someone like Airman Brown lining up their attacks then this poisons the relationship - simples
|
|
|
Post by muttleycafc on Sept 3, 2014 11:47:16 GMT
I think there is a misconception as to the difference between thanking them every day and defending them from percieved unfair criticism. I was always taught not to be ungrateful, and my thanks usually follows somebody else slagging AB off. Those that do not agree with everything in the post can certainly add to it and have a different perspective.
Airman's achievements went beyond the Valley party and getting back home and the club was better for him. It is the owner's choice whether there is a future role for him and that is how it should be. But he has a right to express his views and have them listened too - even if some inside grievance may be motivating some of them - in some cases a greivance that doesn't have a bearing on us and is at a personal level. I think that is undertsandable and shouldn't be too hard to navigate around.
My advice to RD - and I know he doesn't need it. But if he asked for it, would be that Airman is a better friend than enemy. Redirecting his talents from a critical into a strategic course would only benefit the club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 12:34:11 GMT
My advice to RD - and I know he doesn't need it. But if he asked for it, would be that Airman is a better friend than enemy. Redirecting his talents from a critical into a strategic course would only benefit the club. Not going to happen, even if it was desirable. Everitt has shot his bolt by his grossly irresponsible behaviour. It's like the gifted but trouble-making footballer or cricketer - a Balotelli or Kevin Pietersen , perhaps - where you reach a point when the lack of trust is such that you have to accept that such individuals, whatever their skills, are not worth the disruptive tendencies that inevitably come with them. You could invite Everitt inside the tent and he'd probably be fine for a while - until the first little thing that he diasgareed with and then he'd piss all over everyone and turn rogue elephant again.
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Sept 3, 2014 12:39:37 GMT
Re Chris Powell - he was a great manager for the club in terms of getting us out of League 1 and keeping us in the Championship. It must have been high pressure to feel undermined when the squad weakened last summer. I'm grateful he didn't walk when no loan cover appeared for Solly and Kermorgant injuries. The bigger picture is clear to me in that he was part of that era and not the next... After watching just two games under Riga (two draws) I concluded he was the man for the job at that time. My ability to describe the actual football is not great so I stick to the simple example of points, wins and the league table... Apart from Barnsley at home every result went to plan and Riga delivered safety with the squad he inherited. He even coached Sordell into goal scoring form. Sometimes a situation needs a new face to resolve it...sounds clinical I know and I mean no disrespect to Chris Powell. I've come on here, not because I am anti Powell but because I like the discussions around Duchatelet which are not full of fear and suspicion. From day 1 I thought he would be good for the club. Why /how? I looked at the Liege website and then later in January I met a Liege fan at the Valley and we tried to work out the potential motivation for acquiring all these clubs. Without over complicating things my simple observation was that Duchatelet was not going to purchase CAFC for £10-15m and then set fire to the place! Looking at Liege suggested he wasn't a joker. So when he appointed Riga who had been a coach at Liege for 12 months I concluded that this was what it appeared - a simple change to increase the chances of staying up. Here's the clever bit: we stayed up with a change and not by spending millions on players and future salaries... My praise of Slater/Jiminez is a tad tongue in cheek but they did leave Duchatelet with the option of a massive summer clear out which he duly took. Truth be told my only worry about Duchatelet is what happens after we land in the Premier League but that's in the future sometime. Re Airman Brown, I've said too much and in some ways he did me a favour for it was time for me to get out - we had done what we set out to do. It was hard enough to calculate the angles and maintain a relationship with the club management and the Powell survey was our answer to buy us time. The arrival of G21 made it impossible but simple at the same time...as above it was all down to staying up or not. What people forget is what it must be like to be a staff member or manager with certain individuals pouring scorn on them. If someone tried to micromanage me on a message board I would have something to say about it. So we all have a passion for CAFC to the extent we spend spare time writing about the club. The thing is I believe that Airman Brown will only ever shut up if he is working for the club again. He should really give up this aspiration since it is clear that like the playing side, CAFC is recruiting younger better managers these days. So certain people bang on about this and that all the time and I have a pop at them. Thing is I have a lot on so I'm going to stop! Fencing on line clarifies my thought process about the club but there are only so many hours in the week and I have a lot of things to get done Ps thank you Reams for your compliment. Praise indeed! I admit I am intrigued by the potential of a hook up between the Trust and ITTV - it all depends on whether you want the traffic and the associated grief?! I like CL and still post there but it has become tired. There is clearly room for other sites. And by the way I don't believe in one centralised fan group - the responsibility, the grief, the potential for hijack and damage and the possible need to employ staff all take things into a place where I wouldn't want to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 13:22:28 GMT
SR, not sure Airman wants to work for the club again, but as Muttley said there is value in his incredibly broad knowledge and the club would benefit from at least drawing on it. Don't think anyone is talking about him coming on the payroll again.
IA and ott, you highlight one of my frustrations with this particular forum - you haven't read what I wrote [properly] and you've gone off in a different direction as a result. I've not said an exit plan exists, although I'd be surprised if it didn't. My point is that understanding the end game helps us get on board, which is exactly what IA is arguing as well re objectives. I'm asking where RD has said those are his objectives because IA asserted that's what they were, and I assumed he wasn't just proffering conjecture. Guess I was wrong.
Unlike some of the more naive souls on here, I don't believe that personally emailing RD random questions ensures the response received is the truth that I'm looking for. What I believe I'll receive is a well-crafted reply but that commits nothing beyond the club's current PR message. Many of us recognise that RM can spin a message when he likes, why would RD pour out his heart to someone like me who he doesn't know, doesn't trust and from whom he can probably gain very little right now?
I guess if I individually had something from which RD would benefit we might enter a different basis of relationship, but in the meantime I look to organisations like CASTrust (in particular) who can build a more constructive relationship based on those objectives that can be shared (which, incidentally, is one good reason why I'm glad that message came from the G21 and not CASTrust), not least the development of CAFC for its fans.
It struck me this morning that there are two types of Charlton supporter. Those who are active and those who are passive. People like Airman, Razil, Prague even are active, pro-active indeed. They seek to take action themselves to protect and develop the club they support, and they don't accept without question that there's nothing that can be done to influence a private business owner. Or other authorities for that matter. Then there are those who just let the club do what it wants to do because we're just supporters and this is our lot. That's fine, but we lacked the action back in 1985 and it led to years of exile and the risk of losing not just our identity but our club.
It was the action of those same people that gave us our Charlton back and, subsequently, built the 4k crowds of the early 80s into the 27k crowds of the 2000s, in partnership with the club's ownership. So I'm not going to join personal criticism of those more prepared to take action than I have been, even if I reserve the right to criticise where I think the action has been misguided (such as that communication from the G21 group). I see the CASTrust as the right mechanism for action given that we seem to have an owner interested in developing the club for everyone's benefit, which aligns perfectly with their own objectives. And I call on as many others to join as possible and make sure that those who are most active have the support of everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by muttleycafc on Sept 3, 2014 13:30:42 GMT
The way to galvanise fans is to give them a cause. We had that once and the Valley Party was born. Last season, it looked like there was a cause, firstly with the previous owners and then with the new one. But events have conspired to stand us down. I much prefer the idea that if the need was there, able people with track records have a meeting and start to work on a plan, in the same way that they then decide not to proceed as it wasn’t so bad after all.
The trust is a different beast as the motivation for having one will change but the trust remains and then has to justify why it is there. It becomes a club within a club. The problem is, what can it threaten? IS it about threatening or helping? If I was the owner I would be suspicious of it – I would have access to more members (they are called season ticket holders, valley gold members and VIP members. I would even have addresses of people that are none of the above but used to attend games. So why do I need a trust?
G21 is far more favourable and when they are not needed they fade away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 13:54:31 GMT
Muttley, I think you're asking the right questions. I can see why RD would default to thinking it a threat, but I believe the Trust is about helping the club develop for the benefit of its enduring stakeholders, the supporters. That's why I'm a member and will continue to be.
There doesn't seem to be a common enemy right now does there. What RD is doing is building the club, not necessarily in the way we'd all like but undoubtedly things on and off the pitch feel a world apart than they did 12 months ago.
RD's suspicion would be grounded in its organisation. Season ticket holders et al aren't organised, they're individuals who remaining separate offer no threat at all. The CASTrust is an existing supporters' organisation, affiliated to the national one, with over 1000 members, a further 2000 associates and 7000 engaging with their surveys.
I think CASTrust is a force for good though, and hopefully the board can fully persuade KM/RD of that sooner than later.
|
|
|
Post by muttleycafc on Sept 3, 2014 14:11:36 GMT
My problem if I was an owner would be that the trust was formed at a time of turmoil. I would be less suspicious if it was formed at a time of peace and harmony when all was well. And that is an important distinction as if it was supposed to be an anti –board weapon, maybe it might want to be so again. But I might say – well let’s give it a chance – maybe it can help – what can it provide that we can’t already? I’m not sure the answer is anything.
So really the trust is best sleeping until it is needed. But it becomes too big to sleep as it will lose it’s inertia and implode if it does. So without a cause it has to try to grow support by creating flashy newsletters etc…and become something it wasn’t intended to be. That isn’t to say those within it haven’t got the club’s best interests at heart, but these noble motivations can easily get lost in the workings.
I would have a different view if the trust were able to purchase and run the club on future dark day. But I don’t think that is feasible or likely so what is the point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 15:03:35 GMT
It struck me this morning that there are two types of Charlton supporter. Those who are active and those who are passive. People like Airman, Razil, Prague even are active, pro-active indeed. They seek to take action themselves to protect and develop the club they support, and they don't accept without question that there's nothing that can be done to influence a private business owner. Or other authorities for that matter. Then there are those who just let the club do what it wants to do because we're just supporters and this is our lot. That's fine, but we lacked the action back in 1985 and it led to years of exile and the risk of losing not just our identity but our club. This is nonsense. There are and always have been plenty of supporters who carry out all sorts of 'active' roles in support of the club on a voluntary basis. But they just get on with quietly and don't yell 'look at me' as do some of the individuals whom you cite as role models for the 'active' supporter. Doesn't mean they don't care and they should be blamed for their lack of ego. It means they have a proper sense of perspective and are too level-headed and pragmatic to lose sleep worrying about 'exit strategies' and who might buy the club in five years time. Do you know who will be running the country as prime minister in five years time? Of course not. So why do you need to know who might be buying and running CAFC in 2019? We are where we are. And it feels like a pretty good place, right now. Show me a good cause, and I'll fight for it. But fighting those who run our football club, as Everitt and the G21 set out to do, is not a good cause. It wasn't even a good cause when Slater and Jiminez were in charge.
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Sept 3, 2014 15:10:29 GMT
SR, not sure Airman wants to work for the club again, but as Muttley said there is value in his incredibly broad knowledge and the club would benefit from at least drawing on it. Don't think anyone is talking about him coming on the payroll again. IA and ott, you highlight one of my frustrations with this particular forum - you haven't read what I wrote [properly] and you've gone off in a different direction as a result. I've not said an exit plan exists, although I'd be surprised if it didn't. My point is that understanding the end game helps us get on board, which is exactly what IA is arguing as well re objectives. I'm asking where RD has said those are his objectives because IA asserted that's what they were, and I assumed he wasn't just proffering conjecture. Guess I was wrong. Unlike some of the more naive souls on here, I don't believe that personally emailing RD random questions ensures the response received is the truth that I'm looking for. What I believe I'll receive is a well-crafted reply but that commits nothing beyond the club's current PR message. Many of us recognise that RM can spin a message when he likes, why would RD pour out his heart to someone like me who he doesn't know, doesn't trust and from whom he can probably gain very little right now? I guess if I individually had something from which RD would benefit we might enter a different basis of relationship, but in the meantime I look to organisations like CASTrust (in particular) who can build a more constructive relationship based on those objectives that can be shared (which, incidentally, is one good reason why I'm glad that message came from the G21 and not CASTrust), not least the development of CAFC for its fans. It struck me this morning that there are two types of Charlton supporter. Those who are active and those who are passive. People like Airman, Razil, Prague even are active, pro-active indeed. They seek to take action themselves to protect and develop the club they support, and they don't accept without question that there's nothing that can be done to influence a private business owner. Or other authorities for that matter. Then there are those who just let the club do what it wants to do because we're just supporters and this is our lot. That's fine, but we lacked the action back in 1985 and it led to years of exile and the risk of losing not just our identity but our club. It was the action of those same people that gave us our Charlton back and, subsequently, built the 4k crowds of the early 80s into the 27k crowds of the 2000s, in partnership with the club's ownership. So I'm not going to join personal criticism of those more prepared to take action than I have been, even if I reserve the right to criticise where I think the action has been misguided (such as that communication from the G21 group). I see the CASTrust as the right mechanism for action given that we seem to have an owner interested in developing the club for everyone's benefit, which aligns perfectly with their own objectives. And I call on as many others to join as possible and make sure that those who are most active have the support of everyone else. You are very right in that there are two types of fans - the ones who simply go to watch the football(50%) and those who want to invest time in various groups. While the exact numbers vary Trust surveys showed that fans into the Trust were more likely to be into or want to find out about supporter clubs, Valley Gold etc. No one fan is 100% altruistic about why they might put time and effort in...and it is unfortunate that the more time invested and the more contacts and knowledge acquired, the bigger the temptation to steer the agenda in a particular way. And that is why a democratic accountable trust board is the only valid mechanism for the long run. What it actually does and whether the club has appetite to work with it are secondary to accountability and keeping the finances straight. As a result of the pro club stance and the growth of the Trust it received several £500 donations which funded bigger print runs etc. This certainly doesn't mean a supporters trust needs to ignore issues ~ I recall it was very vocal about the pitch last January - responses arrived from the club within 24 hours. Anyway I've said more than enough! Thanks for feedback AND challenges from all - thought provoking and enabled me to expand. I have been careful not to quote CAFC staff or trust board members on specific matters as that would be a breach of confidence and could only be used to hamper future discussions. Back to work and see if I can make time to get to the Agm. If some of the issues raised on here are brought to the attention of Murray, Razil and the board then maybe it helps?
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Sept 3, 2014 15:27:44 GMT
My problem if I was an owner would be that the trust was formed at a time of turmoil. I would be less suspicious if it was formed at a time of peace and harmony when all was well. And that is an important distinction as if it was supposed to be an anti –board weapon, maybe it might want to be so again. But I might say – well let’s give it a chance – maybe it can help – what can it provide that we can’t already? I’m not sure the answer is anything. So really the trust is best sleeping until it is needed. But it becomes too big to sleep as it will lose it’s inertia and implode if it does. So without a cause it has to try to grow support by creating flashy newsletters etc…and become something it wasn’t intended to be. That isn’t to say those within it haven’t got the club’s best interests at heart, but these noble motivations can easily get lost in the workings. I would have a different view if the trust were able to purchase and run the club on future dark day. But I don’t think that is feasible or likely so what is the point? Some interesting questions: whatever the origins I would suggest it is the relationship with fans and club that define a trust. I proposed that the Trust might engage in activities to promote the attendances as a way to help the club and keep the trust active and positive - many trust members and subscribers are likely to be parents or teachers and getting secondary school kids into the Valley is a way to grab them for life. Slater and Jiminez were not particularly interested as their priority was to sell. The fanzine, website and surveys were all tactics to build numbers - what a trust does when the owner is making all the right moves is an interesting question! It simply never occurred in my time because of league position and worries about the future financing. And a trust might raise funds to buy a slice of the club. Funding ongoing losses is the challenge as it's never ending! Unless you can find a way to break even!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 17:47:31 GMT
CASTrust's objectives are:
To give the fans a voice and represent their interests in the running of the Club. To actively support Charlton Athletic Football Club in achieving success both on and off the pitch. To assist in preserving the long term future of the Club, it’s history, culture, values and identity in our Community.
None of these go away where the owner is a good guy. If anything it's a greater opportunity to progress them isn't it? The focus is less of a battle or campaign, and more of a relationship building exercise and growing deeper roots.
The latter is particularly interesting because the long term future of CAFC may depend on things external to the club, including legislation, Greg Dyke's plans, FAPL and the Football League's actions, FFP, etc. CASTrust may be uniquely positioned to champion the club's interests in such areas that politically RD/KM might want the club to steer clear of. G21 couldn't do that, nor could the supporters' clubs - individuals may be able to, but the greater number of people represented the more political weight.
Like I say, I think CASTrust is misunderstood, for whatever reason. That's a challenge to the Trust board to improve the perception, but also to us supporters/members to make sure it becomes a body that can achieve their objectives; objectives I doubt any Charlton supporter has particular issue with (even if they can't subscribe to the methods).
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Sept 3, 2014 18:47:54 GMT
The Trust has critics who accidentally or deliberately misinterpret what the Trust does and what it stands for. You can fight or treat this as a form of feedback and ask how many other fans believe this and how to correct it. Razil and I used to get into regular arguments with Henry Irving on CL but we learnt and we stopped. Instead we asked fans what they thought and we analysed the click rate on the Trust weekly email and the hit rate on the website.
Duchatelet is a good owner but the club is moving at pace. He has six clubs to mind. Does the CAFC management team have the time and inclination to factor in the Trust and to what extent? The more fans who join / subscribe, the more the club might perceive the trust as a valuable partner.
As an example last year they were keen for us and not them to explain FFP. And yet the articles written were never syndicated by the club. They were good articles too and stood the test of time. Only a few months to go until we see FFP in action. It may have no impact on the January window or perhaps clubs are excluded and behaviour changes?
|
|
|
Post by webbo on Sept 4, 2014 13:34:34 GMT
I was there at the time on the inside and "G21" chose to ignore a supporters organisation with over 1,000 members and 5,000 contacts because they did not want to subsume their identity into a bigger fan based body. In reality the supporters body had weeks not days to make statements and it is indicative of the egos and immaturity that some elements blinked. The club did not blink! I could quote emails sent by Rick Everett... I could post the email I sent to the puppet from Prague! It's not pretty but three members of the Trust board came back to me and said "nice one"! I can respect Reams position because he has never pretended to support this collective. On the other hand Henry, Prague and Airman did.. Until it doesn't suit their egos and agendas. I left the Trust board when I did because the landscape evolved such that I could add nothing...also I was busy with work and family...and I calculated that everything would be determined by whether we stayed up or not... Had we gone down we were in a war zone! Had I stayed it would have gotten extremely messy and quite destructive...in answer to a criticism above which I hear very clearly, one cannot build a fans collective with a relationship with the club if individuals are going after personal targets and trying to score points, particularly if they act in a maverick fashion with no accountability. I'll say it again, I don't care what people did in the last century, if they attack the club and owner when a failing manager was being replaced; if they propose season ticket boycotts against my/our club without consulting fans, if they poor vitriol on the management team then they can can fuck off to Ebbsfleet and join their non-league mates. People with knowledge and connections have a responsibility to act in a mature fashion to help build our club - simples Superb post. I'd have a lot more confidence in the Trust if you were still involved in running it, SR. Yes, but if Seriously Red were involved in running it he would not allow ALL Charlton supporters to be involved if he had his way judging by the stuff he posts.
|
|
|
Post by webbo on Sept 4, 2014 13:37:00 GMT
My problem if I was an owner would be that the trust was formed at a time of turmoil. I would be less suspicious if it was formed at a time of peace and harmony when all was well. And that is an important distinction as if it was supposed to be an anti –board weapon, maybe it might want to be so again. But I might say – well let’s give it a chance – maybe it can help – what can it provide that we can’t already? I’m not sure the answer is anything. So really the trust is best sleeping until it is needed. But it becomes too big to sleep as it will lose it’s inertia and implode if it does. So without a cause it has to try to grow support by creating flashy newsletters etc…and become something it wasn’t intended to be. That isn’t to say those within it haven’t got the club’s best interests at heart, but these noble motivations can easily get lost in the workings. I would have a different view if the trust were able to purchase and run the club on future dark day. But I don’t think that is feasible or likely so what is the point? The trust was formed at a time of peace and harmony when all was well though. it was formed in the summer of 2012 just after we'd finished ninth.
|
|
|
Post by webbo on Sept 4, 2014 13:40:15 GMT
I don't think there is any way back for RE at Charlton to be honest which is the way it should be. RD didn't build up a multi million pound fortune based on help, advice and ideas from other people. Not sure whether you're saying it is a good or a bad thing to get help advice and ideas from others. I am guessing you think it is a good idea to listen to others, because you have based your judgement of VOTV based on what others have told you.
|
|
|
Post by webbo on Sept 4, 2014 13:53:28 GMT
I was there at the time on the inside and "G21" chose to ignore a supporters organisation with over 1,000 members and 5,000 contacts because they did not want to subsume their identity into a bigger fan based body. In reality the supporters body had weeks not days to make statements and it is indicative of the egos and immaturity that some elements blinked. The club did not blink! I could quote emails sent by Rick Everett... I could post the email I sent to the puppet from Prague! It's not pretty but three members of the Trust board came back to me and said "nice one"! I can respect Reams position because he has never pretended to support this collective. On the other hand Henry, Prague and Airman did.. Until it doesn't suit their egos and agendas. I left the Trust board when I did because the landscape evolved such that I could add nothing...also I was busy with work and family...and I calculated that everything would be determined by whether we stayed up or not... Had we gone down we were in a war zone! Had I stayed it would have gotten extremely messy and quite destructive...in answer to a criticism above which I hear very clearly, one cannot build a fans collective with a relationship with the club if individuals are going after personal targets and trying to score points, particularly if they act in a maverick fashion with no accountability. I'll say it again, I don't care what people did in the last century, if they attack the club and owner when a failing manager was being replaced; if they propose season ticket boycotts against my/our club without consulting fans, if they poor vitriol on the management team then they can can fuck off to Ebbsfleet and join their non-league mates. People with knowledge and connections have a responsibility to act in a mature fashion to help build our club - simples The best post on here since we started 7 years ago one which I don't think there is a lot more anybody can add. I echo every word especially the line where seriosulyred points to things that happened in the last century. It was a major fans victory back then and every Charlton fan I am sure was grateful that teh hard work from those involved took us back home HOWEVER that doesn't mean to say that we need to say tankyou on a daily basis for the rest of our lives. We all know what Henry, Prague and Rick Everitt are after but it will never happen. They have seen a gap in the market, an opportunity if you like to get their toe through the door believing that RD might be on the look at for a connection from the past to keep the fans happy and their actions are basically volunteering themselves to something that hasn't or ever will be requested. The sooner they realise that they are seen as just fans like the rest of us the better. What exactly are Henry, Prague and Rick Everitt 'after'? It is far from clear. I get what you say about connections with the past, the club has put up pictures of past players all over the Valley so presumably the movers and shakers are Ok with references to the past. As far as I can see henry is trying to get a museum going (is that a bad thing?), Prague is trying to monitor the wider network of other clubs and staypricks (sp?), and Rick Everitt is producing VOTV. Those people seem to be moving on as fans...just like the rest of us...so why the bile, why the hatred, why the bitterness, why write on here that you think Barnie R is a c*nt, why the constant snide remarks (like I must be dyslexic for example)? I don't get it, you wrote earlier that you could give the current regime an insight into continental and Belgium football, so you seem to care about the club, but you want to put down others who care, but who care in a different way to you. I really don't get all the hatred and anger, especially as you describe yourself earlier as 'easy going'. Bewildered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2014 15:21:37 GMT
I will try and answer those challenges. I fully understood why this thread was, at one point, locked. The topic and strength of comment had raised more than one or two blood pressures which sadly diverted it into an unfortunate conflict on (I hope) unrelated issues. I am a little surprised it has rumbled on but now we return to the fundamental principles that have irked so many.
Let me be clear I do not do "personalities" - why people seek to personalise such debates is beyond me but it is those who sought to challenge the club that have sought to demonise the owner, attributing a whole host of perceived strategies and concepts, based on the flimsiest of evidence and much of it based on speculation upon speculation.
The challenge is THERE IS ONLY ONE FOOTBALL CLUB to support. If you attack one part of the club you are still attacking the club. As we have seen it is divisive at every level and breaks people into factions which then leads to the personal abuse.
The initial “thrust” on the Trust made by the original post on the face of it was very harsh but I strongly suggest rather than attack the comments why not recognise they raise a perfectly valid and legitimate concern. It is all too easy to dismiss such comment as a personal rant.
A mature and genuine organisation will take such comment on board, recognise such concerns need answering and dutifully respond.
Believe it or not there is a legitimate opportunity for a “win, win” here.
I have no problem with a group of fans forming an organisation IN SUPPORT of the football club they choose to follow. I am not sure why anyone would. Whether any such organisation can provide a MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTION to the club involved is a very real challenge to anyone wishing to take on the logistical workload of such a venture.
As a conduit for communicating fans views and opinions on all things Charlton to the club via a formal channel a Trust has the potential “to do good”. The challenge however is huge. How do you collate and communicate the disparate views and opinions of 1000’s of supporters?
Even before we address the direction & approach of such an organisation there be appear to be major concerns over the compliance of its formation within normally accepted parameters. No organisation can be credible if it is unable to respond to such challenges. No matter how unreasonable it may consider the question it has a duty to answer such challenges in a spirit of clarity and openness . It is fundamental to the legitimacy of any such organisation. I suggest the current Trust could argue they have followed what they perceive as due process and registered with what they deem to be appropriate authorities but a populace organisation should never be above challenges to its authenticity and mandate to represent others.
In terms of direction and approach the breathtakingly arrogant intervention of the G21 group, for purposes only they will ever comprehend, (I cannot believe anyone can endorse their foolhardy actions) could have hardly been more damaging to the current Trust. They hijacked any meaningful agenda damaging any developing interaction between the club and its supporters. They effectively neutered the Trust.
Pursue the same line as G21 and you play "follow the leader" – adopt a more measured approach and you face the accusations of being weak and a puppet of the club. Stand back to wait for the dust to settle and you portray an organisation locked in inertia akin to the orchestra on the Titanic as any opportunity to make a meaningful impact slowly sinks away.
It was a no win. In such a situation it is little wonder a veritable fog of misunderstandings and confusion arose. For what remains a fledgling initiative it is apparent whatever the intent of the Trust and its board it still has a major task ahead to reassert its legitimacy and its role in CONTRIBUTING to the club and its supporters.
Such reassertion I suggest has to address the concept it seeks to act as some “quasi” auditor providing a form of “check & balances” over and above the actions of the club, its ownership, its officers and employees. If such were a genuine rationale for its creation then such aims would seem at best unrealistic.
While the Trust can reasonably retain the right to express critical comment on behalf of its membership it has to show it has the appetite to drive key initiatives which actually benefit the club otherwise it will merely become a vehicle for divisiveness, complaint and negativity ultimately serving only the egos of those involved. At which point it will be rightly dismissed as irrelevant.
I offer one example building on the achievement to secure the Asset of Community Value award for the “The Valley” – the use of the ground.
Asset is an interesting accolade because in financial terms “asset” is a bit of a financial stretch. In terms of its availability as a stadium capable of supporting a wide range of sporting and/or entertainment events its actual usage is laughable. If you were an investor would you “invest” in a facility which in the strictest terms is only used 7% of its availability?
If the Supporters Trust as representatives of one Charlton “Community” has a real interest in retaining the Valley as the club home I suggest it sets out an agenda to achieve political support for relaxation of the trading restrictions which impose such “draconian” financial constraints on the club.
In all honesty when you consider the national and international profile the Community Trust has established for the club and Greenwich in serving the local community it is time such fantastic work was reflected back toward the club.
I suggest such an initiative might tend to bring significantly greater unity rather than simply seeking to police the club and its officers who currently at the very least appear to be using their best endeavours to rebuild a football business which has been a veritable basket for far too long.
In closing I must address the pomposity of those demanding clarification of exit strategies and network roles. Both in real terms are meaningless. Can we please move past business strategy 101? Having spent 2 decades in “new” business engineering I can assure every aspect of any business plan changes over time in line with the reality of the marketplace in which you try to operate. It has to evolve in line with every change in the marketplace. What may make commercial sense in Yr. 1 may not make commercial sense in Yr. 5. Do you really expect any business organisation to publically share such commercially sensitive information? It is nonsense. I respect and applaud those who feel they wish to be active in supporting and contributing to the club I have supported for many years. I recognise the stated aims of the current Supporters Trust. For me however as always the challenge is in the detail. I will need to see clear evidence it is designed to be a force for the good of the club, not merely a vehicle for dissenting voices.
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Sept 4, 2014 17:04:51 GMT
SR, not sure Airman wants to work for the club again, but as Muttley said there is value in his incredibly broad knowledge and the club would benefit from at least drawing on it. Don't think anyone is talking about him coming on the payroll again. IA and ott, you highlight one of my frustrations with this particular forum - you haven't read what I wrote [properly] and you've gone off in a different direction as a result. I've not said an exit plan exists, although I'd be surprised if it didn't. My point is that understanding the end game helps us get on board, which is exactly what IA is arguing as well re objectives. I'm asking where RD has said those are his objectives because IA asserted that's what they were, and I assumed he wasn't just proffering conjecture. Guess I was wrong. Unlike some of the more naive souls on here, I don't believe that personally emailing RD random questions ensures the response received is the truth that I'm looking for. What I believe I'll receive is a well-crafted reply but that commits nothing beyond the club's current PR message. Many of us recognise that RM can spin a message when he likes, why would RD pour out his heart to someone like me who he doesn't know, doesn't trust and from whom he can probably gain very little right now? I guess if I individually had something from which RD would benefit we might enter a different basis of relationship, but in the meantime I look to organisations like CASTrust (in particular) who can build a more constructive relationship based on those objectives that can be shared (which, incidentally, is one good reason why I'm glad that message came from the G21 and not CASTrust), not least the development of CAFC for its fans. It struck me this morning that there are two types of Charlton supporter. Those who are active and those who are passive. People like Airman, Razil, Prague even are active, pro-active indeed. They seek to take action themselves to protect and develop the club they support, and they don't accept without question that there's nothing that can be done to influence a private business owner. Or other authorities for that matter. Then there are those who just let the club do what it wants to do because we're just supporters and this is our lot. That's fine, but we lacked the action back in 1985 and it led to years of exile and the risk of losing not just our identity but our club. It was the action of those same people that gave us our Charlton back and, subsequently, built the 4k crowds of the early 80s into the 27k crowds of the 2000s, in partnership with the club's ownership. So I'm not going to join personal criticism of those more prepared to take action than I have been, even if I reserve the right to criticise where I think the action has been misguided (such as that communication from the G21 group). I see the CASTrust as the right mechanism for action given that we seem to have an owner interested in developing the club for everyone's benefit, which aligns perfectly with their own objectives. And I call on as many others to join as possible and make sure that those who are most active have the support of everyone else. Not sure why it's just RE's name that gets mentioned all of the time when incredibly broad knowledge of having worked for a football club is spoken about. He's not the only who has done so.
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Sept 4, 2014 17:08:11 GMT
An Excellent read that grapevine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2014 18:00:50 GMT
I quite agree Reams, but SR and IA started discussing him on p1, the conversation's continued and I'm responding to that. Webbo's put it much more eloquently than I could since though. grapevine49, much to agree with there and I guess I'm among the pompous to whom you refer - although as ever I'm being interpreted as much by the responses to my posts than by what I actually wrote, ho hum. I didn't actually ask for the exit plan, I just mentioned it as a significant unknown in consideration of my own personal confidence in the owners, and then answered a question as to why it was significant. Of course plans change, and I think there's evidence of that already. I wonder if Portsmouth supporters might think they could have taken more of an interest in what was going to happen post-Mandaric... Bringing it back to a more realistic interpretation of what I actually said, let me put it this way: I don't know who doesn't benefit from a little more clarity in and communication of the club's direction among its stakeholders, which certainly includes the supporter base. Not expecting the openness of the VIP/Murray/Varney era, but there are hundreds of talented supporters out there who can only add value to the club's own team of people if they were allowed to buy into a vision. And for free! I want to pick up your point regarding concerns about CAS Trust's formation "within normally accepted parameters" and in particular your point about credibility. I think 3 different people have addressed this question on this thread alone, and respondents here have included its chair and a former board member. The Trust have made no secret that they have adopted what is essentially the process laid out by Supporters Direct. It's objective, democratic - but it should also be noted that the ongoing process is for members. Those who are unwilling to join shouldn't be surprised that their participation in board elections will be, ahem, limited. I do agree that the Trust might improve with regards to promoting its activities beyond its membership, because whilst the ACV was a bit of an early flagship (whether you consider it an asset or not, it qualified under the terms of the scheme and of course protection was awarded) they are doing a lot of things with the club and more broadly that non-members may not be aware of. . Of course, unless members vote to spend all their money on professional PR there will need to be some forbearance that the wording might not always be perfect. I suspect 'day to day running' is less intended to mean tell them how to run their business and feel more 'can we keep supporters in mind when you're running the club'. Finally, I guess a lot of the credibility argument will be won or lost in outcomes for Charlton supporters and the club. However, I'm not sure I detect a lot of 'dissent' in the messages that come from the Trust. Perhaps as a member I hear more from them and look out for those messages as well, but I suspect that this is an issue of 'inference' rather than 'implication; by which I mean, if the ground into which the messages are sowed is one that perceives the Trust as a dissenting voice, then 'having a say in the day-to-day running of the club' is a threat. Where one perceives CAS Trust as a force for good, it's an opportunity. It's up to CAS Trust to ensure we all understand which one it is, I guess. Mind you, trusted friends don't always agree with you either. The context of relationship is key, I'd suggest. The more fans backing the Trust, the more we all benefit I think.
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Sept 4, 2014 18:25:11 GMT
They are all good posts and it's been enjoyable reading things from different angles but I still maintain that people are using fans groups for their own ends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2014 18:37:00 GMT
They are all good posts and it's been enjoyable reading things from different angles but I still maintain that people are using fans groups for their own ends. So if you're concerned about CASTrust, join, nominate, vote...
|
|
|
Post by wellingaddick on Sept 4, 2014 20:16:32 GMT
Regarding the ACV, this was one of the main reasons why I was put off joining the Trust. At the time the ACV seemed to be bombed through, without any consideration that potential investors might be put off buying the club because of this.
Certainly in the dark period at the end of MS and TJ's tenure, with Cash having ceased his funding, we were so close to administration. How would the Trust have felt, if we had gone into administration and a potential buyer cited the ACV as a reason for pulling out?
Yes we were lucky that RD did step in and everything seems to have turned out alright in the end.
|
|