|
Post by overthetop on Mar 19, 2015 22:33:54 GMT
Royston could fall into a barrel of tits and still come out sucking his thumb.
|
|
razil
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 154
|
Post by razil on Mar 20, 2015 12:42:12 GMT
Can I just say something on the elitist thing as it something I strove against from day 1, and I don't feel its a fair accusation
* The Trust has from day one asked fans in person for their views, standing in the streets often in the rain talking to fans, and by online surveys, asking exactly how they felt, we were derided for it by some, but we were determined never to become a back room organisation
* I and others put many hours and still do into having a stall, this is unprecedented at our club and has meant for the first time fans can come and talk on a match day rather than just meeting the same people, but allowing us to try to represent as many of the fans as we can, by listening to them
* In terms of elections if enough people stood for the AGM election to the board it would force a contest, but they don't so far, and we did everything we could to encourage them. Its not really the way we ran it anyway, anyone who was prepared to graft and get involved has been brought in, and mores the better, no-one that ever approached me has been denied that.
* Trust board members like Craig, Rich, have come on boards like ITTV despite ridicule and person abuse from some idiotic elements on here, and engage with you. Have your opinion, hold it accountable, but drop all the quite pathetic childish abuse - after all grecian 2000 is hair dye you muppet.. if you have to resort to abuse at least make it accurate. But better still don't drag the mostly grown up members of this forum into your mire.
* Finally if we expect the trust to be a professionally run and disciplined organisation and gain respect, we sometimes need to let them get on with it, particularly at a delicate stage that seems to be happening right now
Cheers
R
|
|
|
Post by browntalk on Mar 20, 2015 13:44:10 GMT
Can I just say something on the elitist thing as it something I strove against from day 1, and I don't feel its a fair accusation * The Trust has from day one asked fans in person for their views, standing in the streets often in the rain talking to fans, and by online surveys, asking exactly how they felt, we were derided for it by some, but we were determined never to become a back room organisation * I and others put many hours and still do into having a stall, this is unprecedented at our club and has meant for the first time fans can come and talk on a match day rather than just meeting the same people, but allowing us to try to represent as many of the fans as we can, by listening to them * In terms of elections if enough people stood for the AGM election to the board it would force a contest, but they don't so far, and we did everything we could to encourage them. Its not really the way we ran it anyway, anyone who was prepared to graft and get involved has been brought in, and mores the better, no-one that ever approached me has been denied that. * Trust board members like Craig, Rich, have come on boards like ITTV despite ridicule and person abuse from some idiotic elements on here, and engage with you. Have your opinion, hold it accountable, but drop all the quite pathetic childish abuse - after all grecian 2000 is hair dye you muppet.. if you have to resort to abuse at least make it accurate. But better still don't drag the mostly grown up members of this forum into your mire. * Finally if we expect the trust to be a professionally run and disciplined organisation and gain respect, we sometimes need to let them get on with it, particularly at a delicate stage that seems to be happening right now Cheers R In terms of elitism, the trust are very confused. What I don't get is who do the trust represent? The trust members or CAFC fans? The trust want representation at board level but refuse to let non trust members join their ranks? So aside from the hyprocrosy of their position tryng to join an board that don't want them and bitching about it, they in turn refuse to let non trust members join them!!! The trust seem to be only accountable to the trust? How does that benefit Cafc fans - is that the elitism you talk about? No wonder you get the piss taken out of your group.
|
|
|
Post by webbo on Mar 20, 2015 13:47:21 GMT
The Trust represents as best they can the Trust members, how can it be any other way?
|
|
|
Post by browntalk on Mar 20, 2015 13:56:30 GMT
The Trust represents as best they can the Trust members, how can it be any other way? So it's elitsim then at £5 a pop? Not for the common good of cAFc at all?
|
|
razil
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 154
|
Post by razil on Mar 20, 2015 14:14:38 GMT
Can I just say something on the elitist thing as it something I strove against from day 1, and I don't feel its a fair accusation * The Trust has from day one asked fans in person for their views, standing in the streets often in the rain talking to fans, and by online surveys, asking exactly how they felt, we were derided for it by some, but we were determined never to become a back room organisation * I and others put many hours and still do into having a stall, this is unprecedented at our club and has meant for the first time fans can come and talk on a match day rather than just meeting the same people, but allowing us to try to represent as many of the fans as we can, by listening to them * In terms of elections if enough people stood for the AGM election to the board it would force a contest, but they don't so far, and we did everything we could to encourage them. Its not really the way we ran it anyway, anyone who was prepared to graft and get involved has been brought in, and mores the better, no-one that ever approached me has been denied that. * Trust board members like Craig, Rich, have come on boards like ITTV despite ridicule and person abuse from some idiotic elements on here, and engage with you. Have your opinion, hold it accountable, but drop all the quite pathetic childish abuse - after all grecian 2000 is hair dye you muppet.. if you have to resort to abuse at least make it accurate. But better still don't drag the mostly grown up members of this forum into your mire. * Finally if we expect the trust to be a professionally run and disciplined organisation and gain respect, we sometimes need to let them get on with it, particularly at a delicate stage that seems to be happening right now Cheers R In terms of elitism, the trust are very confused. What I don't get is who do the trust represent? The trust members or CAFC fans? The trust want representation at board level but refuse to let non trust members join their ranks? So aside from the hyprocrosy of their position tryng to join an board that don't want them and bitching about it, they in turn refuse to let non trust members join them!!! The trust seem to be only accountable to the trust? How does that benefit Cafc fans - is that the elitism you talk about? No wonder you get the piss taken out of your group. Depends what you mean by represent doesn't it? by doing surveys that are open to members and non members, you can represent their views Its not like we ever said this is what the majority of fans think without actually consulting them in a scientific way. The Trust board speaks for itself, as a group of Charlton fans, and as the board of a membership organisation. Our tag line is giving fans a voice and that is what we do. Of course we gave our opinion on things on occasions as a Board but never claimed to speak for fans, without having asked their views. So perhaps you need to elaborate more on what you mean by elitism? I also don't understand what you mean by wanting representation at board level but not allowing non-members? Also board position is a big leap from dialogue, but same time nothing that hasn't been at our club before. So I'm keen to understand what you are getting it, sorry if I'm being dumb
|
|
razil
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 154
|
Post by razil on Mar 20, 2015 14:19:36 GMT
just to add, I have been asked to put fans views forward and have done, and it has never been the case that membership is required for that if that is what you mean
|
|
|
Post by webbo on Mar 20, 2015 14:25:05 GMT
The Trust represents as best they can the Trust members, how can it be any other way? So it's elitsim then at £5 a pop? Not for the common good of cAFc at all? So who are the Trust supposed to represent if it isn't their members? The Yacht Club of Jacksonville? The Woolwich Womens Institute? The Bullenden Club? The Royal College of Midwives? The Mondeo owners club? The National Union of Mineworkers? The Rotary Club of Diss? The Magic Circle? The World Wildlife Fund? The University of York Lemon Fanta Society?
|
|
razil
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 154
|
Post by razil on Mar 20, 2015 14:26:06 GMT
also to add you can be a free member or 'subscriber' and receive our weekly email, so also no need to join, plus under 16s can join for free too (but aren't allowed to stand, or vote)
you do have to be a member to stand or vote in our board election because it works like a registered company, this is how supporters direct the national body like these things set up, each member actually owns a £1 share whilst their membership is live.
£5 is pretty small, won't get much change out of a pint nowadays, so not really sure its a problem, plus its lower than a lot of other Trusts
Its also not elitist because our newsletter TNT is free to all not just members
The only area we restrict is a small part of our website to give people who cough up a fiver a year some small benefits like seeing TNT online sooner.
R
|
|
razil
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 154
|
Post by razil on Mar 20, 2015 14:30:18 GMT
oh and we put on a meeting no membership required, which I took a back seat in, specifically so that fans views could be aired rather than Trust telling people what to think etc, we invited speakers from all the known groups and forums including this one to speak, so yet again no elitism there.
|
|
|
Post by ralphmilnesgut on Mar 20, 2015 14:42:17 GMT
The University of York Lemon Fanta Society. Splitters.
|
|
|
Post by browntalk on Mar 20, 2015 15:22:00 GMT
The University of York Lemon Fanta Society. Splitters. Ok then suppose this happens. Hypothetical of course. The trust want to boycott season ticket sales because horrible Katrien sneered at them. They hold a trust meeting? They vote on it (question who votes? All £5 members, top table members, the Clarke family) The result is that a boycott of season ticket sales is agreed upon. This effects everyone and coukd result in a disproportionate effect upon all CAFC fans. In fact, the majority who just want to watch football without politics. Is that the trust idea of preserving cafc for future generations? by spiking the water for the majority? In short if you want an unelecetd non paying trust member to represent the trust at the directors table - why can't an unelectedn non trust, non paying cafc fan be at the top table in the trust or is it reserved for family?
|
|
|
Post by sonofthedesert on Mar 20, 2015 15:23:53 GMT
Hello, first time poster. Just want to say something that has been slowly brewing after a year of reading this site and CL since the G21 announcement last year. My perception is there is 50 posters max on both forums who make 90% of the noise. That’s 50 out of about 15 thou hard core fans and many thousands more casual fans (as in follow at a distance, not as in B Mob!).
I’ll stick my neck out and say this is a silent majority that doesn’t care about the trust and fan politics in general as long as on the basis of the evidence we have – performance, infrastructure, marketing etc – there appears to be security and a bit of progress. I would tentatively say that box is being ticked and was even being ticked in the run of 15 winless. Yes there are things that are odd about the network approach and not transparent about Roland et al but you can say that about virtually any foreign owner and a few English ones (Mike Ashley anyone?).
So us silent majority that take this passive attitude have a bit of trust that generally things are ok and accept that if things go tits up it will be gutting but that's Charlton, we won't be the first or the last. Life will go on. And in fairness the very people that I am having a dig at here will be the ones to sort it out. But that is my point. The G21 and trust types come into their own in reaction to a genuine crisis. From what I can see that crisis is not and never has been there (since RD took over). It seems people need to make a crisis to indulge some sort of Monty Python argument department whim that validates what they are about in the world of CAFC.
Do the chief protagonists on CL primarily but also on here ever take a breath to consider this silent majority thing? I don’t mean this to disrespect anyone that gives their spare time for the good of the club – especially those that set up fan organisations and moderate these forums - but when I read some beautifully crafted and extremely eloquent missive on some matter of fan politics that must have taken at least half an hour to draft I just think ‘get over yourself mate!’ – we all love Charlton but its not that important!
|
|
|
Post by webbo on Mar 20, 2015 15:28:25 GMT
You make a good point.
However if a group, AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS WILL HAPPEN, want to stop buying season tickets it is a decision taken for themselves. it is not beholden on people to buy tickets to shore up the situation for other fans is it?
Any fan can stand alone, group with others, have whatever structure they like and proceed accordingly. If other fans don't like what's happening they are free to act or react to events aren't they?
The Trust has never promoted a season ticket boycott in any way shape or form as far as I can see.
|
|
razil
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 154
|
Post by razil on Mar 20, 2015 15:38:25 GMT
Hello, first time poster. Just want to say something that has been slowly brewing after a year of reading this site and CL since the G21 announcement last year. My perception is there is 50 posters max on both forums who make 90% of the noise. That’s 50 out of about 15 thou hard core fans and many thousands more casual fans (as in follow at a distance, not as in B Mob!). I’ll stick my neck out and say this is a silent majority that doesn’t care about the trust and fan politics in general as long as on the basis of the evidence we have – performance, infrastructure, marketing etc – there appears to be security and a bit of progress. I would tentatively say that box is being ticked and was even being ticked in the run of 15 winless. Yes there are things that are odd about the network approach and not transparent about Roland et al but you can say that about virtually any foreign owner and a few English ones (Mike Ashley anyone?). So us silent majority that take this passive attitude have a bit of trust that generally things are ok and accept that if things go tits up it will be gutting but that's Charlton, we won't be the first or the last. Life will go on. And in fairness the very people that I am having a dig at here will be the ones to sort it out. But that is my point. The G21 and trust types come into their own in reaction to a genuine crisis. From what I can see that crisis is not and never has been there (since RD took over). It seems people need to make a crisis to indulge some sort of Monty Python argument department whim that validates what they are about in the world of CAFC. Do the chief protagonists on CL primarily but also on here ever take a breath to consider this silent majority thing? I don’t mean this to disrespect anyone that gives their spare time for the good of the club – especially those that set up fan organisations and moderate these forums - but when I read some beautifully crafted and extremely eloquent missive on some matter of fan politics that must have taken at least half an hour to draft I just think ‘get over yourself mate!’ – we all love Charlton but its not that important! Just for reference The Trusts walk up scientific survey interviews back in 2012, suggested more than half thought a supporters trust was a good idea, being silent as you put it doesn't mean approval or otherwise, it probably means people have jobs and no time to be on Forums also not sure where you get 15,000 hardcore from nowadays mate, considering how many of our c10,000 season ticket holders are very young or too old, I make the number much less than you in terms of how many would be 'active' then take into account forums like CL have thousands of members, don't know how many ITTV has (not a slant by the way) and the Trust has 3000 paid and free members outside of a crisis, which is big in Trust terms across the league for the size of club, plus over 2200 followers on twitter, those stats probably add up to about 5,000 which is probably more than half of those who might be active. you might also want to consider that had a Trust or such been active before the selhurst thing, and before Murrays money ran out, we might have saved an awful lot of heartache, or at least been in with a chance
|
|
|
Post by browntalk on Mar 20, 2015 15:49:48 GMT
also to add you can be a free member or 'subscriber' and receive our weekly email, so also no need to join, plus under 16s can join for free too (but aren't allowed to stand, or vote) you do have to be a member to stand or vote in our board election because it works like a registered company, this is how supporters direct the national body like these things set up, each member actually owns a £1 share whilst their membership is live. £5 is pretty small, won't get much change out of a pint nowadays, so not really sure its a problem, plus its lower than a lot of other Trusts Its also not elitist because our newsletter TNT is free to all not just members The only area we restrict is a small part of our website to give people who cough up a fiver a year some small benefits like seeing TNT online sooner. R Razil with all due respect do you now feel that given the middle finger you lot get from the club that the trusts position is unsustainable? And that the trust have shot their bolt? After all, Katrien will speak to anyone but you lot? She Has already told your group it is not special and has disrespected her? The trust are becoming something of a sex pest? If you had 5 million I could get you on the board - you don't. That's life mate.
|
|
|
Post by bexleyboy on Mar 20, 2015 16:32:15 GMT
Problem with the trust and why it won't succed is the people behind it ....
|
|
razil
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 154
|
Post by razil on Mar 20, 2015 17:05:59 GMT
yawn to Bexley Boy.. to the other question, no I don't, first I don't think its time to give up on that, but also a trust is a long term thing, fans are about for a long time, owners come and go - I don't mean that disrespectfully in case KM is reading
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 17:07:45 GMT
People are complicating this way too much.
The key thing is the Supporters' Trust's constitutional objectives, none of which I imagine anyone would view as a bad thing. The approach to achieving them will always invite discussion, but at their heart they are interests that unite all supporters.
Therefore the Trust will seek to work towards achieving those objectives regardless of the levels of membership, and in doing so it is trying to represent the uniting interests of all supporters. We often canvas the views of all supporters, through surveys but also through forums, our stall, personal conversations, etc. in order to ensure that we're not way off beam in our approach.
However, no organisation can represent the individual views of every single person with an interest. The mature thing would be to recognise the delicacy of balancing consensus and leadership, which can sometimes divide folk - particularly in the detail of the approach and activities involved (which can't always be in the public domain, incidentally).
Anyone can join the Trust for what is a nominal fee, and there are benefits both to those people and to the Trust in doing so. Membership strengthens the Trust's ability to achieve its objectives, and by implication that is a wider benefit to non-member supporters who agree with the Trust's objectives. And it's hard to see who would disagree.
A lot of discussion on here has been focused on the personality of individuals who most posters have never met, rather than on the aims and objectives for which the Trust exists. If I might draw a comparison, I'm still scratching my head at why someone is ridiculed for setting up a museum. That's to everyone's benefit isn't it? There's a lot of misunderstanding about our objectives too - we're not just here for a crisis. We're here to help the club succeed - that's one of our stated objectives - whilst trying to keep the helpful bits of our identity, something fans have fought for over a long period of time.
There's also a lot of mischief making from those who for some reason are opposed to the Trust. I don't really understand this position, because it essentially means that they disagree with those objectives for which the Trust exists. If they don't care, why comment? If we're irrelevant, why bother? If you think what we're doing will achieve the opposite of those objectives then by all means criticise, but be constructive and put a realistic alternative approach. There are usually good reasons why we've opted for the route we have, and our decisions as a board usually come out of strong debate as Barnie will confirm. Where we can we will put those reasons out there, although it's not always possible or sensible to do that.
Last year I challenged people to join the Trust and make a difference to it. I took my own advice and stood for election to the Trust board because I wanted to be part of making it work, and helping it achieve its objectives. I'll be judged on the outcome of that, no doubt I'll be judged at every step along the way too - and there will be successes and failures on that journey - but I'm prepared to put myself on the line in this way because I passionately believe that the objectives of the Trust are good and want to play my part in achieving them. I'm doing this in my spare time, as the others are too, for the benefit of the club and for my fellow supporters. If you think that's a bad thing, well I respectfully disagree but you're entitled to your view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 17:11:00 GMT
Problem with the trust and why it won't succed is the people behind it .... There has been quite a change in personnel on the Trust board recently - are you keeping up? How many of them do you actually know?
|
|
|
Post by reamsofverse on Mar 20, 2015 17:52:54 GMT
Hello, first time poster. Just want to say something that has been slowly brewing after a year of reading this site and CL since the G21 announcement last year. My perception is there is 50 posters max on both forums who make 90% of the noise. That’s 50 out of about 15 thou hard core fans and many thousands more casual fans (as in follow at a distance, not as in B Mob!). I’ll stick my neck out and say this is a silent majority that doesn’t care about the trust and fan politics in general as long as on the basis of the evidence we have – performance, infrastructure, marketing etc – there appears to be security and a bit of progress. I would tentatively say that box is being ticked and was even being ticked in the run of 15 winless. Yes there are things that are odd about the network approach and not transparent about Roland et al but you can say that about virtually any foreign owner and a few English ones (Mike Ashley anyone?). So us silent majority that take this passive attitude have a bit of trust that generally things are ok and accept that if things go tits up it will be gutting but that's Charlton, we won't be the first or the last. Life will go on. And in fairness the very people that I am having a dig at here will be the ones to sort it out. But that is my point. The G21 and trust types come into their own in reaction to a genuine crisis. From what I can see that crisis is not and never has been there (since RD took over). It seems people need to make a crisis to indulge some sort of Monty Python argument department whim that validates what they are about in the world of CAFC. Do the chief protagonists on CL primarily but also on here ever take a breath to consider this silent majority thing? I don’t mean this to disrespect anyone that gives their spare time for the good of the club – especially those that set up fan organisations and moderate these forums - but when I read some beautifully crafted and extremely eloquent missive on some matter of fan politics that must have taken at least half an hour to draft I just think ‘get over yourself mate!’ – we all love Charlton but its not that important! Excellent debut post and welcome to ITTV sonofthedesert
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 18:15:00 GMT
also to add you can be a free member or 'subscriber' and receive our weekly email, so also no need to join, plus under 16s can join for free too (but aren't allowed to stand, or vote) you do have to be a member to stand or vote in our board election because it works like a registered company, this is how supporters direct the national body like these things set up, each member actually owns a £1 share whilst their membership is live. £5 is pretty small, won't get much change out of a pint nowadays, so not really sure its a problem, plus its lower than a lot of other Trusts Its also not elitist because our newsletter TNT is free to all not just members The only area we restrict is a small part of our website to give people who cough up a fiver a year some small benefits like seeing TNT online sooner. R Why do you keep putting "R" at the bottom of your posts ? We all know who you are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 18:17:20 GMT
Problem with the trust and why it won't succed is the people behind it .... There has been quite a change in personnel on the Trust board recently - are you keeping up? How many of them do you actually know? Steve Clarke Steve Clarke's wife Steve Clarke's daughter Steve Clarke's son Steve Clarke's niece Steve Clarke's nephew Steve Clarke's milkman Steve Clarke's old Maths teacher All elected with massive majorities. By Steve Clarke.
|
|
|
Post by browntalk on Mar 20, 2015 18:40:09 GMT
People are complicating this way too much. The key thing is the Supporters' Trust's constitutional objectives, none of which I imagine anyone would view as a bad thing. The approach to achieving them will always invite discussion, but at their heart they are interests that unite all supporters. Therefore the Trust will seek to work towards achieving those objectives regardless of the levels of membership, and in doing so it is trying to represent the uniting interests of all supporters. We often canvas the views of all supporters, through surveys but also through forums, our stall, personal conversations, etc. in order to ensure that we're not way off beam in our approach. However, no organisation can represent the individual views of every single person with an interest. The mature thing would be to recognise the delicacy of balancing consensus and leadership, which can sometimes divide folk - particularly in the detail of the approach and activities involved (which can't always be in the public domain, incidentally). Anyone can join the Trust for what is a nominal fee, and there are benefits both to those people and to the Trust in doing so. Membership strengthens the Trust's ability to achieve its objectives, and by implication that is a wider benefit to non-member supporters who agree with the Trust's objectives. And it's hard to see who would disagree. A lot of discussion on here has been focused on the personality of individuals who most posters have never met, rather than on the aims and objectives for which the Trust exists. If I might draw a comparison, I'm still scratching my head at why someone is ridiculed for setting up a museum. That's to everyone's benefit isn't it? There's a lot of misunderstanding about our objectives too - we're not just here for a crisis. We're here to help the club succeed - that's one of our stated objectives - whilst trying to keep the helpful bits of our identity, something fans have fought for over a long period of time. There's also a lot of mischief making from those who for some reason are opposed to the Trust. I don't really understand this position, because it essentially means that they disagree with those objectives for which the Trust exists. If they don't care, why comment? If we're irrelevant, why bother? If you think what we're doing will achieve the opposite of those objectives then by all means criticise, but be constructive and put a realistic alternative approach. There are usually good reasons why we've opted for the route we have, and our decisions as a board usually come out of strong debate as Barnie will confirm. Where we can we will put those reasons out there, although it's not always possible or sensible to do that. Last year I challenged people to join the Trust and make a difference to it. I took my own advice and stood for election to the Trust board because I wanted to be part of making it work, and helping it achieve its objectives. I'll be judged on the outcome of that, no doubt I'll be judged at every step along the way too - and there will be successes and failures on that journey - but I'm prepared to put myself on the line in this way because I passionately believe that the objectives of the Trust are good and want to play my part in achieving them. I'm doing this in my spare time, as the others are too, for the benefit of the club and for my fellow supporters. If you think that's a bad thing, well I respectfully disagree but you're entitled to your view. Eh yes erm very interesting but my question was about a hypothetical vote on a hypothetical issue? And why won't you let a non trust memeber on your board for total transparency after all that is what you want the directors to do?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 19:32:08 GMT
Most of you on here know I don't get out of my tree very often, reason being, if I think I'm right, I'm happy not to defend what I've said or done.
The more you defend your corner, the more it looks like you don't believe in what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by squareball on Mar 20, 2015 20:55:03 GMT
Yes there are things that are odd about the network approach and not transparent about Roland et al but you can say that about virtually any foreign owner and a few English ones (Mike Ashley anyone?). Read more: intothevalley.proboards.com/thread/17578/charlton-athletic-supporters-interview-powell?page=9#ixzz3Uxd4wGZXWelcome on board sonofthedesert. Regarding RD and transparency I feel he is more transparent than the last lot. Wasn't Slater just a front man for a mystery moneyman in the background. There was a secrecy surrounding who owned us or who funded us or whatever. It was very murky if I remember and no transparency whatsoever. When the funding stopped for some unknown reason then the urgent sale was required and here we are. RD while not very clear on whats happening is way more transparent than the other lot were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 21:28:00 GMT
Hello, first time poster. Just want to say something that has been slowly brewing after a year of reading this site and CL since the G21 announcement last year. My perception is there is 50 posters max on both forums who make 90% of the noise. That’s 50 out of about 15 thou hard core fans and many thousands more casual fans (as in follow at a distance, not as in B Mob!). I’ll stick my neck out and say this is a silent majority that doesn’t care about the trust and fan politics in general as long as on the basis of the evidence we have – performance, infrastructure, marketing etc – there appears to be security and a bit of progress. I would tentatively say that box is being ticked and was even being ticked in the run of 15 winless. Yes there are things that are odd about the network approach and not transparent about Roland et al but you can say that about virtually any foreign owner and a few English ones (Mike Ashley anyone?). So us silent majority that take this passive attitude have a bit of trust that generally things are ok and accept that if things go tits up it will be gutting but that's Charlton, we won't be the first or the last. Life will go on. And in fairness the very people that I am having a dig at here will be the ones to sort it out. But that is my point. The G21 and trust types come into their own in reaction to a genuine crisis. From what I can see that crisis is not and never has been there (since RD took over). It seems people need to make a crisis to indulge some sort of Monty Python argument department whim that validates what they are about in the world of CAFC. Do the chief protagonists on CL primarily but also on here ever take a breath to consider this silent majority thing? I don’t mean this to disrespect anyone that gives their spare time for the good of the club – especially those that set up fan organisations and moderate these forums - but when I read some beautifully crafted and extremely eloquent missive on some matter of fan politics that must have taken at least half an hour to draft I just think ‘get over yourself mate!’ – we all love Charlton but its not that important! Great post. Sums it up perfectly. Time for the Trust to pipe down and for the rest of us simply to ignore them until they have something to say that's worth hearing (like a report of their ''dialogue'' with Duchatelet which ain't ever going to happen). Thought Royston said he was slinging his hook because his alter-ego the Slug has been banned? But then we all gave up believing a word he says long ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 21:29:17 GMT
<abbr>.</abbr>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 7:53:11 GMT
I have been advising UKIP on parts of their forthcoming Election manifesto, and I can reveal that Nigel Farage and Co will have some interesting things to say about foreigners owning British football clubs. He is personally aware of the ridiculous situation at CAFC. I am hoping that in any post Election coalition negotiations, one of the red lines will be UKIP insisting on the expulsion of foreign owners, setting them all a reasonable deadline to sell our Clubs back to UK ownership.
|
|
|
Post by overthetop on Mar 21, 2015 9:40:45 GMT
I have been advising UKIP on parts of their forthcoming Election manifesto, and I can reveal that Nigel Farage and Co will have some interesting things to say about foreigners owning British football clubs. He is personally aware of the ridiculous situation at CAFC. I am hoping that in any post Election coalition negotiations, one of the red lines will be UKIP insisting on the expulsion of foreign owners, setting them all a reasonable deadline to sell our Clubs back to UK ownership. I'm hoping they up the spending on mental health. It's clearly needed.
|
|