[cite]Posted By: Fishnets[/cite]My take on this, and its not knocking the work that Henry has done, is that a SD is not needed. The Board only have to come on here and other forums to work out whats griping the fans.
If they were to use CL as a guide they'd think all the fans cared about was which dodgy bird would they like to shag.
of course they may well be right ; - )
Seriously it's one thing reading this board and another responding.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]no season tickets in the south so no official voter base?
That's it. Not voting for you. Or WSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Board only have to come on here and other forums to work out whats griping the fans.
...........
Not everyone uses this site and the other internet forums. There are around 17,000 season ticket holders and probably only a few hundred read/contribute to sites like this.
[cite]Posted By: Fishnets[/cite]At the end of the day, we're only customers anyway. Call me a cynic but some of you have a very high opinion of yourself in regards to what the Board actually think of you.I might be way off the mark but thats my opinion.
That's true. I think you're all a bunch of {edited by WSS] SINK
[quote][cite]Posted By: Fishnets[/cite]At the end of the day, we're only customers anyway. Call me a cynic but some of you have a very high opinion of yourself in regards to what the Board actually think of you.I might be way off the mark but thats my opinion.[/quote]
I had rather a heated discussion with Mr Varney (not Luke) over that once upon a time - I think he thought calling fans 'customers' was a compliment. I chose to differ, as I believe Mr Murray did.
Well firstly Henry, from my perspective you've done an excellent job. I like the way you were able effectively to tread a fine line between keeping a necessary lid on some things and at the same time participating in debate and being as open as you were able. To that extent I hope the forum can do likewise - see my comments below.
As regards the role itself well I was always in favour of it but having recently been a school governor with some very challenging issues to deal with, I can see parallels. In my case I knew stuff that I couldn't discuss, but because I was elected by parents, they understandably felt that I should spill the beans and that every gripe and grudge they had should personally be dealt with by me (and we had 4 elected governors). As a governor you are bound by confidentiality and collective responsibility yet you do not have an real executive power (as the power lies with those who control the money). I believe the SD role is very similar.
As regards the forum, I am prepared to give it a chance to work. It will be a talking shop but I do not see that in itself as a reason for not having it. The acid test for me will be if it is truely free and open to raise difficult questions that put the Directors on the spot and in their answers they are as open as they can be given the constraints of confidentiality.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]AIrman brown said Henry,
According to you the club has had a long while to consider this new forum and how it might work. But as far as I'm aware it isn't imminent.
Is there not a risk that fans might regard the apparent lack of urgency with which it is being established as an indication of the board's attitude towards it?
Perhaps but others might consider that during that time there was a change of CEO and a major amount of transfer activity and cost cutting to be completed.
As for not imminent I'd expect the process to start once the transfer window has closed. If the build up had been launched already then fans might regard that as an apparent distraction from transfer dealings.
Sorry, Henry, but it's time the club stopped hiding behind the "too busy with transfer dealings" line, which it does internally as well as externally. There's only one person on the whole non-football staff who is diverted into that area and that's the CEO, or two if you count Chris Parkes as secretary.
It's absolute nonsense to suggest that the CEO needs to be the person to draw up the plans for a fans' forum and I will tell you from personal experience that there are plenty of people at Charlton who could have done this job over the summer, including me.
In fact, I'm sure you know as well as I do that Steve Waggott isn't going to run the business on a day-to-day basis.
Details of the forum haven't been clarified months after it was announced because it's not regarded as important. And that sends a bad signal to fans.
As for confidentiality, I agree that the fans' director was an awkward compromise in many respects. But the nature of supporter representation is that you either take the nominated people into your confidence or you don't, whether they are forum members or directors. In a forum the club will have much more choice, with the result that fans are much more likely to be excluded from the discussions that matter.
Generous of you to offer yourself and say you had plenty of extra capacity to spare.
Not quite sure that you are in a position to say that other staff had time on their hands to complete their own tasks and take on this role. I rather think that is for them to say or their boss (ie Steve Waggott) to allocate job tasks. Just now Steve does run the business day to day. He may or may not do so in the future but that is not now.
The last election was held during a transfer window. I deliberately suggested that this election not repeat that mistake as both the human resources of the club and the attention of the fans were elsewhere. By giving the election a clearer run we may get more voters and a more informed debate.
All the other directors are non-execs and this election will be overseen by the CEO just as Peter Varney did previously. Did the board take any active part in the previous elections? I don't know but somehow I doubt that.
As a remember it was Ian Cartwright who did the donkey work last time and a bloody good job he made of it too in difficult circumstances. If I haven't said it before publicly then I'll say it now. Well done Ian.
In any case the point of how committed the board may or may not be as supposedly indicated by holding the elections in October rather then August is irrelevant now. The board have agreed that the forum will be created and that they will attend its meetings. It will then be up to the forum members and other fans to make them see the continuing value of having such a forum.
I'm more than aware of the limitations and problems of both the old and new roles having lived them for the past two years but sometimes half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.
I don't wish to put a dampener on things, but if the idea of a SD has been ditched then why/how will the new fans' forum be any better? All I can see is that instead of everything being channelled via one person who sits on the board and therefore has a reasonably loud and influential voice there'll be a committee of (presumably) three elected appointees meaning that there'll be more voices to listen to, and they won't necessarily be speaking as one. For example something that might be an issue in the North Stand might not be an issue to fans in the East/West stand. I can see this being a well meaning talking shop that achieves even less than the SD role if only because it'll have a much lower profile. Ok it is better than nothing but surely the club and supporters club etc can come up with something that'll address the issues that need to be answered?
I think you did a good job as fans' director, but it's exactly the fact that you did which makes the point.
As for the staffing capacity, I work for the club and manage staff based at The Valley, while you don't. Neither do the non-exec directors spend any time at the ground whatsoever, other than board meetings and matchdays, so let's assume I know a bit more about what goes on there than you or they do, shall we?
In fairness to others, however, let's keep it to me: yes, I have been working at well under capacity all summer and that's not my choice or preference, because I've been complaining about this and related issues for nearly two years.
I honestly think that a large proportion of Charlton fans wouldn't know who Ben was or even that we had a Supporters Representative on the Board. That might explain why the votes are so low. I'm not taking anything away from what Ben has done and certainly the time he spends on here (and no doubt through emails) responding to gripes and the such I think is commendable because he does come in for a lot of stick.
Although there are over 20,000 fans in The Valley every home game and we currently have just over 1,000 members on here. We are also the ones that take more of an interest in Charlton than "just something to do on a Saturday". I know a lot of my friends I meet in the pub before the game wouldn't know (or probably even care) about the Supporters Representative so the arguement that "the fans are annoyed" is wide of the mark imho.
It is in no way is the answer to lossing part of the fans voice i.e losing the fans director, but maybe the small shareholders should actually table items for the AGM rather than just leting the Board do it. Of course the small shareholders are dwarfed by the top 5 main shareholders individually.
maybe a month or so be4 the AGM we could have a poll of questions that this site would like tabled at the meeting i.e to propose the re instatemnt of the fans director. I would be happy to put this forward to be bedated and voted on in an open forum like the AGM. May be worth asking for that now as a shareholder to see what the actual reply would be.
GH hater that is a great idea,also when the accounts are published maybe a shareholder can answer a few questions ie what fee if any did we get for Thomas,what fee if any did we get for faye and are we contributing to his wages?
BFR, there may well be a better option although I can't see how the supporters' club would be able to help but that is another issue.
Would I have preferred the SD role to continue as it had been operating? Have a guess but that's one of the restrictions of being a director. As Bing pointed out with his excellent School Governor analogy there are limits on what you can say and you have to take collective responsibility.
The Forum will not be ideal and it may well suffer from the very flaws you describe but the same and other criticisms have been made of the SD role (by me amongst others).
Perhaps I am seeing it too much from my own perspective but I really got fed up with the "if you don''t agree totally with my illogical and badly thought out idea then you are not doing your job and the whole SD role is a waste of time" and the "you always stick up for the club" idiots. For some people it became all about me and not enough about the issues. My own fault some would say for sticking my head above the parapet and writing the articles etc. Maybe Sue was right to keep a low profile after all
RedArmy,
I guess you would be right when you say many fans would not know who I am or about the role but can you or any of you name your local councillor? (OK Airman, I know you can ; - ) That doesn't mean that they are doing a bad job or that local councils should not exist IMHO. I would love to be able to prove that awareness of the role has increased in the past two years but I can't. My instinct says yes but again that might just be wishful thinking on my part.
GH, Go for it. That's what these events should be about not pot holes in the car park IMHO ie asking the board to explain the strategic decisions they have made. You may not get the answer or an answer you want but you'll never know till you try.
Airman, thanks for the compliment. I do really appreciate it and those from the rest of you.
I think you are right when you say you should keep it about your own capacity for extra work. I really don't think this is the place to discuss the workload, or supposed lack of same, of people who are your colleagues and ,technically at least, my employees especially when some of them, and other directors, read this board.
Comments
:)
but no longer, except Suze perhaps..
If they were to use CL as a guide they'd think all the fans cared about was which dodgy bird would they like to shag.
of course they may well be right ; - )
Seriously it's one thing reading this board and another responding.
That's it. Not voting for you. Or WSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...........
Not everyone uses this site and the other internet forums. There are around 17,000 season ticket holders and probably only a few hundred read/contribute to sites like this.
Shame he's not still in the West as he could have walked that.
Suze is ALWAYS sticking up for the club. makes me sick : - )
(that's sick in the traditional usage not the Street version that DA9 and Ledge use!)
That's true. I think you're all a bunch of {edited by WSS] SINK
You're a cynic.
As regards the role itself well I was always in favour of it but having recently been a school governor with some very challenging issues to deal with, I can see parallels. In my case I knew stuff that I couldn't discuss, but because I was elected by parents, they understandably felt that I should spill the beans and that every gripe and grudge they had should personally be dealt with by me (and we had 4 elected governors). As a governor you are bound by confidentiality and collective responsibility yet you do not have an real executive power (as the power lies with those who control the money). I believe the SD role is very similar.
As regards the forum, I am prepared to give it a chance to work. It will be a talking shop but I do not see that in itself as a reason for not having it. The acid test for me will be if it is truely free and open to raise difficult questions that put the Directors on the spot and in their answers they are as open as they can be given the constraints of confidentiality.
Sorry, Henry, but it's time the club stopped hiding behind the "too busy with transfer dealings" line, which it does internally as well as externally. There's only one person on the whole non-football staff who is diverted into that area and that's the CEO, or two if you count Chris Parkes as secretary.
It's absolute nonsense to suggest that the CEO needs to be the person to draw up the plans for a fans' forum and I will tell you from personal experience that there are plenty of people at Charlton who could have done this job over the summer, including me.
In fact, I'm sure you know as well as I do that Steve Waggott isn't going to run the business on a day-to-day basis.
Details of the forum haven't been clarified months after it was announced because it's not regarded as important. And that sends a bad signal to fans.
As for confidentiality, I agree that the fans' director was an awkward compromise in many respects. But the nature of supporter representation is that you either take the nominated people into your confidence or you don't, whether they are forum members or directors. In a forum the club will have much more choice, with the result that fans are much more likely to be excluded from the discussions that matter.
I hope I'm wrong.
Not quite sure that you are in a position to say that other staff had time on their hands to complete their own tasks and take on this role. I rather think that is for them to say or their boss (ie Steve Waggott) to allocate job tasks. Just now Steve does run the business day to day. He may or may not do so in the future but that is not now.
The last election was held during a transfer window. I deliberately suggested that this election not repeat that mistake as both the human resources of the club and the attention of the fans were elsewhere. By giving the election a clearer run we may get more voters and a more informed debate.
All the other directors are non-execs and this election will be overseen by the CEO just as Peter Varney did previously. Did the board take any active part in the previous elections? I don't know but somehow I doubt that.
As a remember it was Ian Cartwright who did the donkey work last time and a bloody good job he made of it too in difficult circumstances. If I haven't said it before publicly then I'll say it now. Well done Ian.
In any case the point of how committed the board may or may not be as supposedly indicated by holding the elections in October rather then August is irrelevant now. The board have agreed that the forum will be created and that they will attend its meetings. It will then be up to the forum members and other fans to make them see the continuing value of having such a forum.
I'm more than aware of the limitations and problems of both the old and new roles having lived them for the past two years but sometimes half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.
I think you did a good job as fans' director, but it's exactly the fact that you did which makes the point.
As for the staffing capacity, I work for the club and manage staff based at The Valley, while you don't. Neither do the non-exec directors spend any time at the ground whatsoever, other than board meetings and matchdays, so let's assume I know a bit more about what goes on there than you or they do, shall we?
In fairness to others, however, let's keep it to me: yes, I have been working at well under capacity all summer and that's not my choice or preference, because I've been complaining about this and related issues for nearly two years.
Although there are over 20,000 fans in The Valley every home game and we currently have just over 1,000 members on here. We are also the ones that take more of an interest in Charlton than "just something to do on a Saturday". I know a lot of my friends I meet in the pub before the game wouldn't know (or probably even care) about the Supporters Representative so the arguement that "the fans are annoyed" is wide of the mark imho.
maybe a month or so be4 the AGM we could have a poll of questions that this site would like tabled at the meeting i.e to propose the re instatemnt of the fans director. I would be happy to put this forward to be bedated and voted on in an open forum like the AGM. May be worth asking for that now as a shareholder to see what the actual reply would be.
Would I have preferred the SD role to continue as it had been operating? Have a guess but that's one of the restrictions of being a director. As Bing pointed out with his excellent School Governor analogy there are limits on what you can say and you have to take collective responsibility.
The Forum will not be ideal and it may well suffer from the very flaws you describe but the same and other criticisms have been made of the SD role (by me amongst others).
Perhaps I am seeing it too much from my own perspective but I really got fed up with the "if you don''t agree totally with my illogical and badly thought out idea then you are not doing your job and the whole SD role is a waste of time" and the "you always stick up for the club" idiots. For some people it became all about me and not enough about the issues. My own fault some would say for sticking my head above the parapet and writing the articles etc. Maybe Sue was right to keep a low profile after all
RedArmy,
I guess you would be right when you say many fans would not know who I am or about the role but can you or any of you name your local councillor? (OK Airman, I know you can ; - ) That doesn't mean that they are doing a bad job or that local councils should not exist IMHO. I would love to be able to prove that awareness of the role has increased in the past two years but I can't. My instinct says yes but again that might just be wishful thinking on my part.
GH, Go for it. That's what these events should be about not pot holes in the car park IMHO ie asking the board to explain the strategic decisions they have made. You may not get the answer or an answer you want but you'll never know till you try.
Airman, thanks for the compliment. I do really appreciate it and those from the rest of you.
I think you are right when you say you should keep it about your own capacity for extra work. I really don't think this is the place to discuss the workload, or supposed lack of same, of people who are your colleagues and ,technically at least, my employees especially when some of them, and other directors, read this board.