As has been said numerous times, Lifers are all adults who can make up their own minds, even if many of us occasionally behave on here like kids in the playground!
Reading this thread, ROT is clearly a Marmite concept, and let’s be honest – there has yet to be a Roland Out protest of whatever nature which has received universal support. So why not read through ROT’s website http://www.rolandouttoday.eu/ and take a look at the Twitter account https://twitter.com/RolandOutToday and make up your own mind?
This is a very “Charlton” protest – peaceful, lawful, and – yes – a bit eccentric! Unlike the Valley Party, ROT does not even aim to get many votes (if we do that will be a bonus!). The whole idea is to use the vehicle of canvassing and electioneering to put RD in a situation where it is in the interest of his reputation and ego to get this sale over the line asap, rather than leaving it all to drift along at its own pace.
Unlike the marches and car-park protests, this will not need thousands of supporters to achieve, but it will need a few more than are currently signed up, including some who are willing and able to distribute leaflets, etc. in Sint-Truiden. There is a membership tab on the website.
I'm sure nobody will be more delighted than ROT’s organisers and supporters if the club is sold before October, as the aim of the vast majority of fans – ROT supporters or not – will have been achieved and we can all get back to being ordinary fans rather than the extraordinary Addicks circumstances have forced us to become. However, what if it isn't sold by then?
How about supporting something that is already working to get Roland out?
It's a one off, extremely timely initiative - ROT.
Don't think we can just wait for that, to be honest. More needs to happen and more quickly, in a place where many people can get involved more easily. We need to make the football authorities and the local authorities uncomfortable here.
Not at all sure I understand this comment.
ROT are asking for support from people acting immediately by becoming members and thus giving financial support. They are also asking for volunteers to go to Belgium in less than two weeks time to deliver leaflets and other propaganda.
Have you a plan to make the football authorities and the local (?) authorities uncomfortable quicker than that?
I wish you well with it, but it’s not a solution of itself, which I think some of you are in danger of mistaking it for. It’s just another protest and one that’s difficult for 99 per cent of fans to participate meaningfully in and hard to get a critical mass of local people to engage in, beyond the bubble of publicity you will create around it.
Already there is a narrative being set up that it would have been more successful if only CARD or me or someone else had done more to make it work, complete with the usual look-at-me tweets from the B20 account, often factually mistaken as this weekend and taken down when others involved point that out. How does that help anyone? Do you think it encourages those being dug out to get involved, two and a half years into this?
No, i don’t have the answers but it would be foolish to rely solely on one tactic, which is difficult to pull off, very far away, when the biggest resource we have is weight of numbers and passion here in England. We need to find a way to harness that.
I don’t believe that you have answered my question. It seemed to me that the implication of your original post was you were aware of something significant in the protest line was going to happen before ROT were next going to Belgium.
I, and no-one else that I can think of has ever suggested that ROT’s activities are a solution of itself: nothing that CARD or the B20 and indeed any other protest group has done has been a solution of if itself. if that were the criterion of any protest than everything that CARD, B20 and everybody else has done, including you, must be judged a dismal failure. What ROT are trying to do is continue to put pressure on Roland in his own backyard. ( Exactly what CARD were attempting with their taxi protest, what B20 have been doing have been doing for two and a half years and what prompted CARD and and B20 to jointly organise the unity march.) It may help, it may not but at least it is an attempt to do something when the well of other ideas appears to have run dry.
A meaningful contribution to this effort would be for people that to join ROT with the Ten pound membership fee. I do not believe that is beyond the means and wit of 99 per cent of Charlton fans. A bigger contribution would be for people to go to Belgium for one weekend and help deliver leaflets; in which case 1cent of Charlton fans would do nicely.
In your third paragraph you seem to imply that I am digging people out “ two and a half years into this “. When have I done that?
With regard to your fourth paragraph, I agree with every word.
You may not have criticised and undermined publicly but I'm aware that you've lied about our intentions and methods in order to discredit ROT within the coalition. Why? I do not know, only you know that.
Our meeting of 10th October 2017 with you and one other member of CARD was positive and we left on the understanding that we had a collaboration. You were tasked with investigating the requirements on the Belgian municipal election system, whilst the other CARD member was tasked with exploring ideas for a party name and logo, and to commission a party promotional video for the agreed launch date of 5th December 2017. I emailed the notes to you on 12th October 2017. On 1st November you expressed the view that we should delay the launch and that waiting another month or so would not jeopardise the campaign, that was the last communication I had from you on the matter.
We continued preparations for the launch, but in mid November I was contacted by another member of the coalition to say that CARD would not support us because it was thought a takeover was imminent and our activities might negatively affect that. Based on that premise, at around that time we were also told the protest fund could not be used for something that might impact on the takeover and therefore would not be available to ROT.
A week or so after the launch you asked if you could write something about ROT in the VOTV and I agreed. The result was a few lines in the news roundup - thanks for that.
We have consistently believed there is a need to keep the pressure on in all possible ways until Duchâtelet has left the building, and that is what we will continue to do. You can have whatever opinion you want on whether the amount of effort required is worth it, but since it's not you making the effort why should you care? I just find it extremely sad that this opportunity may well fall short simply because for some reason YOU don't approve.
As for B20? Like it or not, ROT are not answerable for their views. If the tweets were in tweeted from the ROT twitter account that would be different.
I haven't lied about your intentions to anyone - we made our concerns clear to you at the meeting and it then became apparent to us that you had a view about how you wanted to proceed regardless of them - the launch without a candidate being the obvious example. To be honest I haven't spoken to anyone in CARD about ROT for months, probably since then. We were tasked to assess your plan for the group at that stage and feed back. We did so; you didn't like the conclusion we reached but it was never a blanket refusal for all time. We mainly felt it would be very difficult to take forward successfully and likely wouldn't be needed.
It's disingenuous to say we didn't get back to you because @davo55 did, on behalf of CARD. But that was nine or ten months ago.
You've had numerous discussions with @davo55 since then and he is supporting you. So are others, but you are struggling for numbers because you were always going to struggle for numbers, in my opinion.
Even last week I got an email from someone in ROT asking to know why I wasn't actively supporting it, and replied knowing full well it would be shared and followed up and turned into personal criticism, even though it was a private response. And here we are.
At no stage have I aired my reservations publicly, but your mate with the B20 twitter account wanted to stir it as usual. It's massively tedious.
As with previous experience with the B20 and ROT, you ask for advice and help and then ignore it (two CARD comms people had spoken at length about the best way to use the original Duchatelet video for example, but your group went your own way). That's fine, it's advice, but it's not unreasonable if people stop giving it if they don't feel it's valued. Why not just get on and do what you want to do? It's not CARD or the protest fund or me that is holding you back.
Rick, I'll not persue this further here but will email you later. One point to put straight though is that I did say someone from CARD contacted me to say our campaign couldn't be supported. That was indeed Davo55.
That's true. I've been involved in a lot of the communication one way or the other, as I seem to have adopted the role of interface between the groups. That was driven by a desire to be helpful and to try to build relationships more than anything else. At one stage there was a concern that the ROT campaign could destabilise what we thought (wrongly, as it turned out) was an imminent takeover. But it's also true to say, I think, that there have been other more positive exchanges where we have sought to be helpful, and ROT have certainly been helpful to CARD with information from "on the ground" in Belgium.
There really is no anti-ROT agenda in CARD (although I admit to sharing the frustration with the continual sniping from the B20 (not ROT) twitter guys). I look forward to being out in Belgium with the ROT team in the next couple of months, and I won't be the only CARD organiser out there helping.
I am a member of CARD and ROT, fully support them both and am planning to go to Belgium shortly.
I also support the B20 actions, as many digs at Roland the better from my perspective, I dont enjoy the sniping at each other but understand its a natural state of affairs.
Twitter Twatter doesnt help but I cant control that only respond from tweet to tweet.
Of course CAST is "doing something". Three of us (one of whom is supposed to be on holiday) have spent most of our weekend on it. But it's the nature of Supporter Trust stuff that it is prepared with care and below the radar until such time as we have something concrete to report.
There is absolutely no point in the Trust trying to duplicate either CARD or ROT efforts to generate public attention to our plight. Indeed we are part of CARD, that is the whole point of it. Within the CARD team you have at least two people who are media professionals, and better placed to understand and activate the media than anyone within the Trust Board. That is the strength of the Coalition.
And as for ROT? Well, see you in Sint-Truiden sometime soon.
Roland Out Today.
Thanks for your post.
CAST recently announced that it does not support the proposed actions of CARD, due as I recall to the impending sale of the club. Now that it seems that the sale is far from certain, does CAST retain their previous stance? Furthermore what actions are CAST recommending to it's paid supporters to help bring forward the sale?
Thanks in advance for your response.
We also always have to ask ourselves, about any call for our members to do "something", how would the next owner view our actions? Are they the actions of responsible mature people with whom they could in future have "structured dialogue" a permanent fans voice in the boardroom ultimately.
The desire for a place in the boardroom is exactly what is holding CAST back, imo and is why I've never joined, the focus should be protecting the club and for the last 4 years has meant getting RD out, not protecting future relationships that may never exist.
Also, surely any future owner will understand the situation that caused the call to do something, I know I'm biased but I can't think of any other clubs that have relied on their fans like ours.
If I was looking to buy the club the dedication and passion shown by fans during protests would impress me, not worry me.
OK...I think for some people, the very word "boardroom" is red rag to a bull. I get that. So let's not get fixated on "a seat on the board" with all that conjures up to some. What Trusts are all about is what is now called "structured dialogue". I don't like the phrase but what it should mean is that fans' elected representatives meet regularly with the club ownership to ask questions and get answers about the strategic direction of the club. What is the financial position? What does this mean for squad development? What are the the reasonable goals for the team? What resources will be needed and can this Board get them? Not operational things, which are dealt with separately in a Fans Forum. Pompey and AFCW are owned by the fans, some Trusts like Brentford are on the Board, some are not but over time have built surprisingly strong dialogues with difficult owners in regular minuted meetings. Chelsea are a good example. Spurs were, but last year they fell out with Levy. Fulham meet every three months.
That's our goal (I mean of every Trust). Not necessarily "in the boardroom" in the sense you mean it. But it means, like it or not, that there have to be fans whom the owners think understand business and are in the eyes of the owners, realistic, reasoned, reasonable. Because they don't have to talk to any one of us.
Anyone who thinks that that sounds like people who are, I don't know, "middle class" or happier in a lounge than in the Covered End, doesn't know me, nor the brilliant people I have met from so many other Trusts in the last 5 years. I'll be happy to compare credentials for being "Proper Charlton" with anyone in the bar at the AGM.
Of course CAST is "doing something". Three of us (one of whom is supposed to be on holiday) have spent most of our weekend on it. But it's the nature of Supporter Trust stuff that it is prepared with care and below the radar until such time as we have something concrete to report.
There is absolutely no point in the Trust trying to duplicate either CARD or ROT efforts to generate public attention to our plight. Indeed we are part of CARD, that is the whole point of it. Within the CARD team you have at least two people who are media professionals, and better placed to understand and activate the media than anyone within the Trust Board. That is the strength of the Coalition.
And as for ROT? Well, see you in Sint-Truiden sometime soon.
Roland Out Today.
Thanks for your post.
CAST recently announced that it does not support the proposed actions of CARD, due as I recall to the impending sale of the club. Now that it seems that the sale is far from certain, does CAST retain their previous stance? Furthermore what actions are CAST recommending to it's paid supporters to help bring forward the sale?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Perfectly reasonable questions. This is not a CAST forum so I will reply only on the basis that it's my personal opinion, and which i have not yet shared with the rest of the team.
Indeed the principle concern we had was about timing. It absolutely was not a narrow issue of "we don't want to boycott because we personally have bought season tickets", as was portrayed on here. At the same time, there would have been a question of hypocrisy. Many CAST members are season-ticket holders. We would be asking them to boycott, which would mean that all CAST board members who are ST holders, would need to be convinced that the idea would have the desired effect, at that time, which was mid July.
We also always have to ask ourselves, about any call for our members to do "something", how would the next owner view our actions? Are they the actions of responsible mature people with whom they could in future have "structured dialogue" a permanent fans voice in the boardroom ultimately. At the time, on balance we judged that the takeover was likely to proceed in the timescales fed to us, and that being the case, we decided that we would look neither responsible nor mature by backing the call at that time. Or to put it more graphically, to avoid getting a message from Gerard Murphy along the lines of "what part of 'two weeks hopefully, please be patient' did you clowns not understand?"
It now appears that our relative optimism was misplaced and none of us bow to anyone in our dismay at that. Therefore it follows that we will review our decision, not least because there were opinions of, 'well if it were (xxxdate) it might be different."
Personally I think boycotts are highly problematic, as can be seen on CL every day, but I also believe in multiple activities at the same time to achieve our goals.
Hope that clarifies.
This is nor a CAST forum? Are you saying this is a CARD forum then? I thought it was a Charlton forum!
Prague clearly did not say that or even infer that. Not helpful.
I wasn't trying to be unhelpful. I come here as I think this is a Charlton Forum that allows (and encourages) all viewpoints - protesters and non-protestors, Card, ROT and everyone who loves CAFC. Sorry if I misunderstood the meaning of the "This is not a CAST forum" line from PragueAddick.
Seeing as it is clear, at least it should be, that the owner couldn't care less about the club, there doesn't seem to be anything we can do in terms of protesting at games etc... that will have any effect. We can boycott - personally I am boycotting because I don't want a further penny of my money in his pocket. I feel all we can do is annoy him so much that he decides that such a small part of his empire is more trouble than it is worth. The law is a bit of an obstacle in relation to this!
For this reason, it feels those that are taking the protests to Belgium and are looking for any way to get under his skin are our best hope. It is unlikely to be one action, but we can only hope straws keep getting placed on his back until it breaks.
I don't think any supporters organisation should be criticised. All have a part to play, but it looks like our efforts have to be re-doubled. What I don't understand is criticising the Australians. They don't have to buy us and certainly not at the ridiculous price Duchatelet is demanding. It is quite possible this tool is going to take us out of the league, but when we get rid of him we can re-build our great club. I would hope that the point is being reached where we take any opportunity to go for him, even when he does sell the club. His behaviour should not be excused nor forgiven.
Conversation in the bar at the CAST AGM PA: when I went to the Valley as a young lad I had to walk barefoot from Kidbrook LL: Kidbrook? I had to walk from Grove Park in just my underpants as I had no other clothes
CAST should be taking the lead; the spokesman for the fans.
But they never have done, they followed from the beginning and focused on surveys.
Honestly, what nonsense, especially from the bloke who loves to make snide comments more often than not on the Trust Facebook page.
You never answer on your facebook page, and as a member i have every right to comment on the CAST facebook page, maybe you should justify your existence rather than throwing your toys out of the pram, or would you rather do a survey first.
Of course CAST is "doing something". Three of us (one of whom is supposed to be on holiday) have spent most of our weekend on it. But it's the nature of Supporter Trust stuff that it is prepared with care and below the radar until such time as we have something concrete to report.
There is absolutely no point in the Trust trying to duplicate either CARD or ROT efforts to generate public attention to our plight. Indeed we are part of CARD, that is the whole point of it. Within the CARD team you have at least two people who are media professionals, and better placed to understand and activate the media than anyone within the Trust Board. That is the strength of the Coalition.
And as for ROT? Well, see you in Sint-Truiden sometime soon.
Roland Out Today.
Thanks for your post.
CAST recently announced that it does not support the proposed actions of CARD, due as I recall to the impending sale of the club. Now that it seems that the sale is far from certain, does CAST retain their previous stance? Furthermore what actions are CAST recommending to it's paid supporters to help bring forward the sale?
Thanks in advance for your response.
We also always have to ask ourselves, about any call for our members to do "something", how would the next owner view our actions? Are they the actions of responsible mature people with whom they could in future have "structured dialogue" a permanent fans voice in the boardroom ultimately.
The desire for a place in the boardroom is exactly what is holding CAST back, imo and is why I've never joined, the focus should be protecting the club and for the last 4 years has meant getting RD out, not protecting future relationships that may never exist.
Also, surely any future owner will understand the situation that caused the call to do something, I know I'm biased but I can't think of any other clubs that have relied on their fans like ours.
If I was looking to buy the club the dedication and passion shown by fans during protests would impress me, not worry me.
OK...I think for some people, the very word "boardroom" is red rag to a bull. I get that. So let's not get fixated on "a seat on the board" with all that conjures up to some. What Trusts are all about is what is now called "structured dialogue". I don't like the phrase but what it should mean is that fans' elected representatives meet regularly with the club ownership to ask questions and get answers about the strategic direction of the club. What is the financial position? What does this mean for squad development? What are the the reasonable goals for the team? What resources will be needed and can this Board get them? Not operational things, which are dealt with separately in a Fans Forum. Pompey and AFCW are owned by the fans, some Trusts like Brentford are on the Board, some are not but over time have built surprisingly strong dialogues with difficult owners in regular minuted meetings. Chelsea are a good example. Spurs were, but last year they fell out with Levy. Fulham meet every three months.
That's our goal (I mean of every Trust). Not necessarily "in the boardroom" in the sense you mean it. But it means, like it or not, that there have to be fans whom the owners think understand business and are in the eyes of the owners, realistic, reasoned, reasonable. Because they don't have to talk to any one of us.
Anyone who thinks that that sounds like people who are, I don't know, "middle class" or happier in a lounge than in the Covered End, doesn't know me, nor the brilliant people I have met from so many other Trusts in the last 5 years. I'll be happy to compare credentials for being "Proper Charlton" with anyone in the bar at the AGM.
I might go to the AGM this time and if you wear your gillet I’ll even buy you a beer
Not sure why this turned into a CARD v CAST v ROT v B20 shootout. Each has played their part over the last few years in their own way, each with varying degrees of success.
Back to the OP, I think it's a very valid question to ask and I don't think Prague needs to be so defensive - he's made his own contribution to protests after all, particularly those the other side of the channel and was a forerunner in terms of thinking that way, so is in a relative position of strength to receive the challenge.
One of the things that I've varied in with the Trust board is what it means to preserve the club and its identity for future generations. Of course in the right circumstances the priority should be to talk and build relationship, and I was at the front of the Trust agm asking for patience when it appeared the club were open to a structured dialogue.
I changed my mind about what was needed when it became painfully obvious that dialogue wasn't going to happen. I challenged the board then about action and in the end decided to part ways as I couldn't accept the broader consensus on the board (and because I wanted to protect relationships that were becoming fraught in the disagreement). Unlike Anna_kissed I didn't feel there was animosity towards me for a dissenting view, but we simply differed.
In light of the emerging situation I hope the Trust does reconsider its attitude to the 'not a penny more' call. Noone worth listening to is going to call someone a hypocrite for having bought a ticket before the call was made loudly as it was last month. But I do think that whilst there is division amongst fans and trust members, it is time the board showed some more leadership in protest than it has to date, with full respect to people like pico and wedgie for their full engagement throughout.
If ever there was an existential crisis it's now, and as a trust member I'd like to know what the board will be doing to preserve my club. And to be frank, I don't think worries about future owners does it when there may be no club to own.
CAST should be taking the lead; the spokesman for the fans.
But they never have done, they followed from the beginning and focused on surveys.
Honestly, what nonsense, especially from the bloke who loves to make snide comments more often than not on the Trust Facebook page.
You never answer on your facebook page, and as a member i have every right to comment on the CAST facebook page, maybe you should justify your existence rather than throwing your toys out of the pram, or would you rather do a survey first.
So finally I rose to the bait. Perhaps I didn't answer on Facebook because I have met you in person at a sponsor's dinner- Alan Curbishley, wasn't It? And accepted your LinkedIn request. And exchanged constructive private messages about your suggestions for Trust surveys (oh the irony) on here once upon a time. So perhaps I decided diplomacy was the best policy.
But seeing as this thread has descended into anyone and everyone ripping shreds off each other, perhaps it seemed like the appropriate time to join in.
I think the trust should lay on a coach a week to sint truiden fro next week until October. If the cost is an issue, I am happy for the trust board to tell me how much it is and I will pay for it.
Jaysus I see Rick has reverted to type. I'm glad we didn't have social media when we were trying to get back to the Valley. Can we just give ourselves a reminder. We're all Charlton fans, we want to get our club back. We need to get a fecking grip & do that together.
If we had social media back then we would of never got back to the valley,thing is now theres 100s of opinions all different and we had that little Italian guy.......................................camaraderie
Jaysus I see Rick has reverted to type. I'm glad we didn't have social media when we were trying to get back to the Valley. Can we just give ourselves a reminder. We're all Charlton fans, we want to get our club back. We need to get a fecking grip & do that together.
If we had social media back then we would of never got back to the valley,thing is now theres 100s of opinions all different and we had that little Italian guy.......................................camaraderie
Unbelievable thread. Full of everything that is wrong about the Charlton fanbase.
Maybe it's not just the Charlton fanbase, maybe it's a football thing or a reflection of society in general.
Either way, it matters not. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Absolute rubbish.
I find the differing of opinions and views on the way to protest/boycott actually healthy. Particularly the fact that everyone is happy to air those views and that they are considered by all without the need for insults or threats.
Sure, a few people are getting defensive and protective, but that's only natural.
The key thread to this, is that virtually everybody wants rid of the Belgian nutter, we have different ideas of how to hasten that and that we still have some very capable, determined and inventive fans who in their own way will try to speed that process up.
It's not "absolute rubbish" though. It's my opinion, and not you or the Charlton Life thought police are going to change how I felt when I read some of these comments. So just live with it.
How did standard liege get rid of him, how many leaflets did that take ?
It took (a) intimidation by their Ultras gatecrashing his office - definitely not the "Charlton way" - and
(b) the financial situation at the club which enabled him to award himself a multimillion euro "dividend", thereby letting him to pose to his sycophants as a genius in the world of football ownership. In the process he left them broke, and they consequently fell to their lowest ever league position.
Maybe they would have been better off using leaflets? In any event, they have provided ammunition for the one produced by ROT - see the ROT objective thread.
So a healthy debate about getting rid of blood sucking owner on a fans forum is "Full of everything that is wrong about the Charlton fanbase"?
Really?
That isn't what this thread has been though is it. It's just sniping from supporters of the various protest groups against one another, just like the contest to be the most ITK on the takeover thread.
We all want the same outcome, but the egos on show make the whole thing tiresome.
Unbelievable thread. Full of everything that is wrong about the Charlton fanbase.
Maybe it's not just the Charlton fanbase, maybe it's a football thing or a reflection of society in general.
Either way, it matters not. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
I am afraid that you are absolutely right, even though I am sure you include me as one of the guilty parties.
From my POV the thread has been utterly poisonous from the very first OP, and has caused significant damage in relationships between people who should be allies in actively working to help get rid of Duchatelet as soon as possible (and are working hard in their spare time when they might prefer to be enjoying the summer with their nearest and dearest) on what they think they can do, as I said to the OP in my reply.
That's all I am going to say on this thread, although privately some things will need to be resolved so that we can get back to focusing on the actual objective.
PA - please reread my original post which opened this thread as it was in no way "utterly poisonous"
To remind you I published an email to CAST highlighting the current plight of our club and asking if they had any plans, also suggesting that we all support ROT.
Please tell me how that is "utterly poisonous"?
PS: I'm assuming that "the very first OP" refers to my opening post
PA - please reread my original post which opened this thread as it was in no way "utterly poisonous"
To remind you I published an email to CAST highlighting the current plight of our club and asking if they had any plans, also suggesting that we all support ROT.
Please tell me how that is "utterly poisonous"?
PS: I'm assuming that "the very first OP" refers to my opening post
OK, I will at least answer that.
1. You wrote your email to CAST at 15.00, I understand. You started this thread at 15.05.
2. You've made two similarly phrased "calls for action" of the Trust in the last 3 years. The first time however, from what I have just found in my emails (at my office, in work time), you at least confined yourself to a direct email to CAST. And you received a response. I cannot remember which of the two occasions it was, but in one case Steve Clarke gave you a call and you spent a lot of time discussing your concerns together and the challenges which face a Trust all day every day when fans are in conflict with owners. After that you kindly posted on CL that you had clearly changed your viewpoint and encouraged people to join CAST.
I think that if Steve gave you a call today he and you would probably have a very similar conversation, even if the details of where CAFC are today are different to the last two times. I guess if you had waited for a reply in a reasonable time scale, you'd have got one, and not a short one either. He made the effort to call you because you joined up as member no 70, which is much appreciated. But you know, I think there's a limit to how much you as an individual should expect people to respond like that. I could understand it if the CAST "board" were a "Board" of stuffed shirts earning a shed load of money. We are just fans like you, and if we are used as a punchbag for people to vent their frustrations, don't be surprised if the punchbag punches back in equal frustration, especially at this time. But it does not do any good, does it, to "throw punches" at each other?
I have just sent the following email to CAST, and I would lik eto genarate a debate on this site as to what CAST and/or all supporters can do to bring this terrible sitaution to a climax and resolution
"As a member of CAST I wish to register my complete and utter horror at the current plight of the club with
Our best player assets being sold a below their value to raise cash for the owner Miserly cost cutting at the Valley and Sparrows Lane No new information to supporters on the possible sale of the club Low season ticket sales All the above indicate that the owner has no regard for our club and definitely no regard whatsoever for the supporters.
As the only group representing supporters I am a little concerned that you are not doing more to publicise our plight, a Sky interview before the Sunderland game would have been helpful, or another meeting with the owner’s representative.
I hope your silence is because you are busily organising something and not just sitting on your hands.
This is a crucial time in the history of our club and the Trust need to act"
The only thing that I have done is join ROT today and I urge all of you to do likewise as it seems that RD only becomes upset is when he is challenged in his neighbourhood. He has challenged and upset us in ours let us do more of the same to him.
Having re-read the original post, quoted above, from @lancashire lad I fail to see how it is "utterly poisonous" as described by @PragueAddick
Comments
Reading this thread, ROT is clearly a Marmite concept, and let’s be honest – there has yet to be a Roland Out protest of whatever nature which has received universal support. So why not read through ROT’s website http://www.rolandouttoday.eu/ and take a look at the Twitter account https://twitter.com/RolandOutToday and make up your own mind?
This is a very “Charlton” protest – peaceful, lawful, and – yes – a bit eccentric!
Unlike the Valley Party, ROT does not even aim to get many votes (if we do that will be a bonus!). The whole idea is to use the vehicle of canvassing and electioneering to put RD in a situation where it is in the interest of his reputation and ego to get this sale over the line asap, rather than leaving it all to drift along at its own pace.
Unlike the marches and car-park protests, this will not need thousands of supporters to achieve, but it will need a few more than are currently signed up, including some who are willing and able to distribute leaflets, etc. in Sint-Truiden. There is a membership tab on the website.
I'm sure nobody will be more delighted than ROT’s organisers and supporters if the club is sold before October, as the aim of the vast majority of fans – ROT supporters or not – will have been achieved and we can all get back to being ordinary fans rather than the extraordinary Addicks circumstances have forced us to become. However, what if it isn't sold by then?
I, and no-one else that I can think of has ever suggested that ROT’s activities are a solution of itself: nothing that CARD or the B20 and indeed any other protest group has done has been a solution of if itself. if that were the criterion of any protest than everything that CARD, B20 and everybody else has done, including you, must be judged a dismal failure. What ROT are trying to do is continue to put pressure on Roland in his own backyard. ( Exactly what CARD were attempting with their taxi protest, what B20 have been doing have been doing for two and a half years and what prompted CARD and and B20 to jointly organise the unity march.) It may help, it may not but at least it is an attempt to do something when the well of other ideas appears to have run dry.
A meaningful contribution to this effort would be for people that to join ROT with the Ten pound membership fee. I do not believe that is beyond the means and wit of 99 per cent of Charlton fans. A bigger contribution would be for people to go to Belgium for one weekend and help deliver leaflets; in which case 1cent of Charlton fans would do nicely.
In your third paragraph you seem to imply that I am digging people out “ two and a half years into this “. When have I done that?
With regard to your fourth paragraph, I agree with every word.
There really is no anti-ROT agenda in CARD (although I admit to sharing the frustration with the continual sniping from the B20 (not ROT) twitter guys). I look forward to being out in Belgium with the ROT team in the next couple of months, and I won't be the only CARD organiser out there helping.
I also support the B20 actions, as many digs at Roland the better from my perspective, I dont enjoy the sniping at each other but understand its a natural state of affairs.
Twitter Twatter doesnt help but I cant control that only respond from tweet to tweet.
That's our goal (I mean of every Trust). Not necessarily "in the boardroom" in the sense you mean it. But it means, like it or not, that there have to be fans whom the owners think understand business and are in the eyes of the owners, realistic, reasoned, reasonable. Because they don't have to talk to any one of us.
Anyone who thinks that that sounds like people who are, I don't know, "middle class" or happier in a lounge than in the Covered End, doesn't know me, nor the brilliant people I have met from so many other Trusts in the last 5 years. I'll be happy to compare credentials for being "Proper Charlton" with anyone in the bar at the AGM.
For this reason, it feels those that are taking the protests to Belgium and are looking for any way to get under his skin are our best hope. It is unlikely to be one action, but we can only hope straws keep getting placed on his back until it breaks.
I don't think any supporters organisation should be criticised. All have a part to play, but it looks like our efforts have to be re-doubled. What I don't understand is criticising the Australians. They don't have to buy us and certainly not at the ridiculous price Duchatelet is demanding. It is quite possible this tool is going to take us out of the league, but when we get rid of him we can re-build our great club. I would hope that the point is being reached where we take any opportunity to go for him, even when he does sell the club. His behaviour should not be excused nor forgiven.
PA: when I went to the Valley as a young lad I had to walk barefoot from Kidbrook
LL: Kidbrook? I had to walk from Grove Park in just my underpants as I had no other clothes
(Apologies to Monty Python)
Back to the OP, I think it's a very valid question to ask and I don't think Prague needs to be so defensive - he's made his own contribution to protests after all, particularly those the other side of the channel and was a forerunner in terms of thinking that way, so is in a relative position of strength to receive the challenge.
One of the things that I've varied in with the Trust board is what it means to preserve the club and its identity for future generations. Of course in the right circumstances the priority should be to talk and build relationship, and I was at the front of the Trust agm asking for patience when it appeared the club were open to a structured dialogue.
I changed my mind about what was needed when it became painfully obvious that dialogue wasn't going to happen. I challenged the board then about action and in the end decided to part ways as I couldn't accept the broader consensus on the board (and because I wanted to protect relationships that were becoming fraught in the disagreement). Unlike Anna_kissed I didn't feel there was animosity towards me for a dissenting view, but we simply differed.
In light of the emerging situation I hope the Trust does reconsider its attitude to the 'not a penny more' call. Noone worth listening to is going to call someone a hypocrite for having bought a ticket before the call was made loudly as it was last month. But I do think that whilst there is division amongst fans and trust members, it is time the board showed some more leadership in protest than it has to date, with full respect to people like pico and wedgie for their full engagement throughout.
If ever there was an existential crisis it's now, and as a trust member I'd like to know what the board will be doing to preserve my club. And to be frank, I don't think worries about future owners does it when there may be no club to own.
But seeing as this thread has descended into anyone and everyone ripping shreds off each other, perhaps it seemed like the appropriate time to join in.
I so despair sometimes.
Maybe it's not just the Charlton fanbase, maybe it's a football thing or a reflection of society in general.
Either way, it matters not. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
I find the differing of opinions and views on the way to protest/boycott actually healthy. Particularly the fact that everyone is happy to air those views and that they are considered by all without the need for insults or threats.
Sure, a few people are getting defensive and protective, but that's only natural.
The key thread to this, is that virtually everybody wants rid of the Belgian nutter, we have different ideas of how to hasten that and that we still have some very capable, determined and inventive fans who in their own way will try to speed that process up.
Really?
To be honest, you can think what you want mate, I'm not going to rise to it.
Good day to you, sir.
(b) the financial situation at the club which enabled him to award himself a multimillion euro "dividend", thereby letting him to pose to his sycophants as a genius in the world of football ownership. In the process he left them broke, and they consequently fell to their lowest ever league position.
Maybe they would have been better off using leaflets?
In any event, they have provided ammunition for the one produced by ROT - see the ROT objective thread.
We all want the same outcome, but the egos on show make the whole thing tiresome.
From my POV the thread has been utterly poisonous from the very first OP, and has caused significant damage in relationships between people who should be allies in actively working to help get rid of Duchatelet as soon as possible (and are working hard in their spare time when they might prefer to be enjoying the summer with their nearest and dearest) on what they think they can do, as I said to the OP in my reply.
That's all I am going to say on this thread, although privately some things will need to be resolved so that we can get back to focusing on the actual objective.
To remind you I published an email to CAST highlighting the current plight of our club and asking if they had any plans, also suggesting that we all support ROT.
Please tell me how that is "utterly poisonous"?
PS: I'm assuming that "the very first OP" refers to my opening post
1. You wrote your email to CAST at 15.00, I understand. You started this thread at 15.05.
2. You've made two similarly phrased "calls for action" of the Trust in the last 3 years. The first time however, from what I have just found in my emails (at my office, in work time), you at least confined yourself to a direct email to CAST. And you received a response. I cannot remember which of the two occasions it was, but in one case Steve Clarke gave you a call and you spent a lot of time discussing your concerns together and the challenges which face a Trust all day every day when fans are in conflict with owners. After that you kindly posted on CL that you had clearly changed your viewpoint and encouraged people to join CAST.
I think that if Steve gave you a call today he and you would probably have a very similar conversation, even if the details of where CAFC are today are different to the last two times. I guess if you had waited for a reply in a reasonable time scale, you'd have got one, and not a short one either. He made the effort to call you because you joined up as member no 70, which is much appreciated. But you know, I think there's a limit to how much you as an individual should expect people to respond like that. I could understand it if the CAST "board" were a "Board" of stuffed shirts earning a shed load of money. We are just fans like you, and if we are used as a punchbag for people to vent their frustrations, don't be surprised if the punchbag punches back in equal frustration, especially at this time. But it does not do any good, does it, to "throw punches" at each other?