[cite]Posted By: northstandsteve[/cite]Can I just ask one question didn't we do all this with the VIP scheme back in 1991-1992,I invested then and am i asked to do the same thing again.What really pisses me off is that under the VIP Scheme we as fans were promised a supporters director on the board.Can I ask who the feck gave our board the remit to take that position away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, there are some similarities with the VIP scheme (I was a member too) but some crucial differences. CAFC created the VIP scheme before the whole Supporters' Trust idea existed.
The VIP scheme ran out after 10 years. The board then continued it (they didn't have to) and opened the voting to all ST holders in 2002.
So it was the board's decision to make. Personally I wanted it to continue and argued for it to do so but the board as a whole decided not to.
The weakness of the VIP scheme and the Supporters' director role was that it was in the gift of the board. A Trust is a legal entity that can, if that's what people want, own or control shares and in some cases they own the club.
Anyway Steve the fans director role is gone. All the reasons why are another debate for another time.
I am in favour of a supporters' trust and I would make two suggestions in relation to it.
1) The fans' forum representation should come from the trust, rather than be self-appointed or appointed by the football club. This is not a criticism of the current FF participants, but I think the present arrangement lacks legitimacy and will inevitably overlap or conflict with a trust. I also think the trust, if seen to be widely based and representative of supporters in general, should have little difficulty in securing that arrangement with the football club. The club cannot sensibly argue that it should choose who represents its fans' views.
2) The Greenwich and Bexley branch of the supporters' club is serving no purpose and should be wound up. It would be quite feasible for trust members to join en masse and vote it out of existence. A broadly-based trust would be in a much better position to speak on behalf of supporters.
I wouldn't want to take an active part in the trust because I don't think I'm in a position to do so and I think there is a risk that you get the same old people with the same ideas, which discourages new people from coming forward. That - and the lack of a clear objective - was the reason the 2005 initiative did not garner much enthusiasm.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]I am in favour of a supporters' trust and I would make two suggestions in relation to it.
1) The fans' forum representation should come from the trust, rather than be self-appointed or appointed by the football club. This is not a criticism of the current FF participants, but I think the present arrangement lacks legitimacy and will inevitably overlap or conflict with a trust. I also think the trust, if seen to be widely based and representative of supporters in general, should have little difficulty in securing that arrangement with the football club. The club cannot sensibly argue that it should choose who represents its fans' views.
2) The Greenwich and Bexley branch of the supporters' club is serving no purpose and should be wound up. It would be quite feasible for trust members to join en masse and vote it out of existence. A broadly-based trust would be in a much better position to speak on behalf of supporters.
I wouldn't want to take an active part in the trust because I don't think I'm in a position to do so and I think there is a risk that you get the same old people with the same ideas, which discourages new people from coming forward. That - and the lack of a clear objective - was the reason the 2005 initiative did not garner much enthusiasm.
I think those are good suggestions. I guess one of the things we could talk about is the possibility that the leadership of the trust would come from the FF members - but of course that would depend on them being up for it. The two things working together (or even better - as one) would be the ideal situation.
I think the issue of the Supporters' club is separate from a Trust. I see no reason why the two can't exist alongside each other.
It is up to the officers and members of the Greenwich and Bexley branch to decide to wind up or continue that branch just as it is any of the other branches or groups.
I personally would hope that some or all of the fans forum members come along to the meeting on 4th August. A lot of people will have questions and one of the aims of the meeting is to answer them hence inviting someone from Supporters' Direct.
I agree that it would be better if the fans forum had been elected and that is the way that the forum was originally designed. Later on it was decided to co-opt all the nominees onto the forum I would assume for practical operational reasons.
It certainly wasn't the choice of the forum members themselves as they weren't involved at that stage.
personally i now think it has been apparent the ff was never wanted by the board,and was agreed to appease the fans for the abolition of fans director.I always belived the fans director would last forever,and that anybody taking the club on was on the knowledge of this.It appears to me the current board couldn't wait to get rid of it and if this is the case,despite all my support over the past couple of months, shame on the lot of yer.
I think its harsh to suggest the club chose the forum - everyone who applied was accepted why did more not apply and won't the same happen when trying to find active members of the supporters trust?
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]I think the issue of the Supporters' club is separate from a Trust. I see no reason why the two can't exist alongside each other.
It is up to the officers and members of the Greenwich and Bexley branch to decide to wind up or continue that branch just as it is any of the other branches or groups.
No reason - if it actually functioned. I just think it needs a) strengthening or b) putting out of its misery.
i see ackworth is a member on that facebook group. I doubt many of those who have joined that group have much idea of whats its about, more that its charlton related.
[cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]i see ackworth is a member on that facebook group. I doubt many of those who have joined that group have much idea of whats its about, more that its charlton related.
No doubt lost of people will just join anything on Facebook Charlton related (I'm a prime example, still being a member of the "Mark Hudson Appreciation Society" !) but the high numbers joining up show two things 1) A good awarness is now being made of the concept of the Supporters Trust and 2) If even just 10% of those who are signed up on FB come along that would be 35 just from there now and hopefully alot more by the 4th of August.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]1) The fans' forum representation should come from the trust, rather than be self-appointed or appointed by the football club. This is not a criticism of the current FF participants, but I think the present arrangement lacks legitimacy and will inevitably overlap or conflict with a trust. I also think the trust, if seen to be widely based and representative of supporters in general, should have little difficulty in securing that arrangement with the football club. The club cannot sensibly argue that it should choose who represents its fans' views.
This is very dangerous thinking and would be a massive mistake. The fans' forum is absolutely 100% democratic: anyone was able to stick their heads above the parapet, could. The club didn't control that - so why should another body. Why would you want a self selecting body to be able to hold sway over those appointments. If we're looking at an equity based trust then I'm not comfortable at all with the concept that only those that can afford to are allowed to appoint people. Not the best way to get the right people for the gig. If it is just going to be a talk-shop (and I'm not at all sure that I've got any idea how it will do anything than undermine the FF, if it does, but that's another story) then you'll have a bunch of self-selected individuals choosing who is allowed to represent us. Sure, anyone can turn up to the meeting, but before long the trust will feel inclusive to some, while others will not agree with the way it develops. This happens with any organisation. So suddenly people who feel the trust does not represent them (and we've seen the number of times this board is accused - sometimes rightly usually unfairly - of harbouring cliques).
The problem with our club is not the Fans' Forum. Let's be clear about that. Personally, I think they're doing a stand-up job and represent a broad-church of our views. It's the first time that I think we've managed to get the right balance of a cordial relationship with the club and challenging where necessary. Given that the latter has happened more than at any time since the club has returned home I really can't see any concern with the current appointment system. I really am missing how we can be in any way confident that an organisation that hasn't yet met, that has no charter and no official membership is better placed to perform this appointment based on comments on four pages of an internet forum and I'm surprised nobody else is worried.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]1) The fans' forum representation should come from the trust, rather than be self-appointed or appointed by the football club. This is not a criticism of the current FF participants, but I think the present arrangement lacks legitimacy and will inevitably overlap or conflict with a trust. I also think the trust, if seen to be widely based and representative of supporters in general, should have little difficulty in securing that arrangement with the football club. The club cannot sensibly argue that it should choose who represents its fans' views.
This is very dangerous thinking and would be a massive mistake. The fans' forum is absolutely 100% democratic: anyone was able to stick their heads above the parapet, could. The club didn't control that - so why should another body. Why would you want a self selecting body to be able to hold sway over those appointments. If we're looking at an equity based trust then I'm not comfortable at all with the concept that only those that can afford to are allowed to appoint people. Not the best way to get the right people for the gig. If it is just going to be a talk-shop (and I'm not at all sure that I've got any idea how it will do anything than undermine the FF, if it does, but that's another story) then you'll have a bunch of self-selected individuals choosing who is allowed to represent us. Sure, anyone can turn up to the meeting, but before long the trust will feel inclusive to some, while others will not agree with the way it develops. This happens with any organisation. So suddenly people who feel the trust does not represent them (and we've seen the number of times this board is accused - sometimes rightly usually unfairly - of harbouring cliques).
The problem with our club is not the Fans' Forum. Let's be clear about that. Personally, I think they're doing a stand-up job and represent a broad-church of our views. It's the first time that I think we've managed to get the right balance of a cordial relationship with the club and challenging where necessary. Given that the latter has happened more than at any time since the club has returned home I really can't see any concern with the current appointment system. I really am missing how we can be in any way confident that an organisation that hasn't yet met, that has no charter and no official membership is better placed to perform this appointment based on comments on four pages of an internet forum and I'm surprised nobody else is worried.
I think no one is worried because there is nothing to worry about at the moment. The meeting is one to look at viability, how the Trust may operate and what are it’s goals and aspirations.
As far as I can see it, decisions would be made on the basis of membership rather than equity holding, as all equity purchased by the trust would be held in the trusts name rather than the individual who donated that specific amount of money.
My personal wish is that the Trust would slot in alongside the Forum, basically giving it a bit of bite. It would make the board more accountable to the fans (and the Fans Forum), something which this summer has shown is sorely missing.
Given the "Community" emphasis on the Supporters Direct site would it be feasible for the existing Community Trust to effectively become the Supporters trust too?
If possible a lot of set up time etc might be avoided. Obviously if the existing aims and objectives of the Community trust would be compromised then it wouldn't be an option.
I reckon the most useful thing to do would be to try to persuade (if it is possible) Peter Varney to assist/advise at least in the initial stages of establishing the Trust to help focus on the most practicable objectives and most effective means of achieving them.
As I understand it, the FF was selected and appointed by the Board and is now itself selecting replacements for the members that have dropped out. What qualifications these people have to do this I can only speculate. I am not doubting the overall willingness of the volunteers to help but we now have the issue of exponentially decreasing calibre of chosen members.
There is also the fact that the FF has achieved . . . not alot, since it started. The main shareholders have only met the FF members once in 8 months and since then they have given the FF the same smoke and mirrors job as they have the rest of the public, press and bloggers. So there is no 'inside track' or priviledged access. In fact no contact at all. Only press releases from Steve Waggott that would normally go to the media.
If the ST can succesfuly incorporate the FF (or those of its members the Trust collectively feels appropriate) then the Board (or new owners) will have a body it will have to respect - and they will because these people are businesmen who will not want to alienate their best customers.
We have an opportunity with the ST to build an organisation with the benefit of a mass of experience in what works and what doesn't. I don't know what Morticians' angle is but the ST seems pretty promising to me and a vast improvement on what we have now.
I don't think now is the time to be discussing the merits / failings of the FF, nor how it might potentially link in or differentiate from a proposed ST. That should be for later down the line.
The next month should be about gaining an understanding of how the Trust could work, what its targets should be, and who is both keen and thick-skinned enough to want to take a greater involvement.
Did anyone else read the Wycombe story on a link on the Trust's website? Would be interested in other peoples thoughts on Wycombe's Trust having to agree/vote with the club's board on moving grounds or lose the Chairman's financial support and see the club go under? (unless i misunderstood?)
Agree with AFKA there is a lot of work to be done and thought needed if this is to get off the ground or not as the case may be.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]I don't think now is the time to be discussing the merits / failings of the FF, nor how it might potentially link in or differentiate from a proposed ST. That should be for later down the line.
The next month should be about gaining an understanding of how the Trust could work, what its targets should be, and who is both keen and thick-skinned enough to want to take a greater involvement.
As promised earlier in this thread, the Fans' Forum has reviewed the available material and discussed the Supporters' Trust idea. Our considered view is as follows:
We request clarity on the overall objective that formation of such a Trust is designed to achieve. While it is easy to say that "the Trust can be whatever you want", the same can be said of any new initiative and we feel that clarity of purpose should precede even the most well-intentioned of ideas.
If a major objective is to gain a form of representation on the Board via a fans' elected director, then the stated reasons why this previous role was not allowed to continue need to be addressed. If communication between the fans and the Club is the principal objective, then surely this is currently being fulfilled by the existing Fans' Forum. The Fans' Forum is not bothered about self-preservation, but simply questions the value of creating a new group with a communications remit when one already exists. Of course, if the general consensus is that the Fans' Forum is not acheiving its objectives adequately, then that is a separate issue - and one which can be addressed more easily than by resorting to the creation a Supporters' Trust.
Ownership of the Club, or parts of the Club may also be considered as obtainable objectives, and we note that there are examples of this at Exeter and Chesterfield. However, our feeling is that Charlton is a much bigger entity than these examples and we question whether a Supporters' Trust could raise sufficient sums of money to make such an aspiration viable.
Despite these questioning comments, the Fans' Forum welcomes any intiative designed to improve communications between fans and the Club. To that end, we will be in attendance on 4th August and will listen openly and contribute fully to the discussion. If a positive outcome is envisaged, the Fans' Forum will be delighted to play a part in that - even at the expense of its own role and future.
[quote][cite]Posted By: m2[/cite]As I understand it, the FF was selected and appointed by the Board and is now itself selecting replacements for the members that have dropped out. What qualifications these people have to do this I can only speculate. I am not doubting the overall willingness of the volunteers to help but we now have the issue of exponentially decreasing calibre of chosen members[/quote]
Our qualifications include the fact that we know what is required of new members and can ensure that anyone appointed knows what they are letting themselves in for ............ something which we, of course, did not benefit from on our 'appointment', because no-one knew.
'Exponentially decreasing'? Interesting take. How about 'strengthening our skill sets, improving the balance and scope of our representation of fans'? You say 'tomato' and I say ........ err ........ 'tomato'.
[quote][cite]Posted By: m2[/cite]There is also the fact that the FF has achieved . . . not alot, since it started. The main shareholders have only met the FF members once in 8 months and since then they have given the FF the same smoke and mirrors job as they have the rest of the public, press and bloggers. So there is no 'inside track' or priviledged access. In fact no contact at all. Only press releases from Steve Waggott that would normally go to the media[/quote]
We'd be interested to know what your definition of 'achieving a lot' might be. Let us know. We have gained a great deal more output from the Club than press releases from Steve Waggott. Have you read our output? Was the cancelled Q&A not in itself a piece of thirst-quenching communication in an otherwise arid desert of Summer Silence from the Club?
Everyone is welcome to their view, of course, but the way to improve things where dissatisfaction exists is to offer positive suggestions for improvement. Phrases like 'has achieved .... not a lot' don't really help.
dont matter if you are a "fans Director"----------"Fans Forum"-------------etc etc etc your there doing your best and there to be shot at by people who have an agenda,by the loonies that follow this club or just by people with frustrations.Not saying thats right but we know it happens.
We already have the Fans Forum and the Shareholders-----------to be honest the shareholders OWN the club and should have done/or do more. They actually have power something the FD/FF didnt or dont. No idea why we as shareholders havnt actually at least tabled one agenga item re the AGM. Of course the vote is bogus as RM/DC etc dwarf the rest of the small scale shareholders, but they HAVE to respond to a tabled item.
IMO im with Airman on the Trust and FF issue. not saying all from the FF should be drawn from the trust but some have to.
Agenda items : *aims *cash *trusties
PS I`ll look after the cash. My address is PO Box 1212, CO Deanos Bar,Pattaya, Thailand
There are many details to iron out and without putting carts before horses, my main view is set out in a previous post, namely that the Trusts constitutional role should be to act as "guardian angels" to the club. There is no point though in commiting to say, buy a block of shares, or install a trust member on board if that is manifestly impossible. The new owners, if it happens, may make the club a private company and thus no shares may be available with no chance of board representation. In that case the ST will need to be a focussed stakeholder pressure group with a set of aims and objectives which in the minds of the ST and it's members, best represent both the "bottom line" for fans and also their reasonable aspirations. These clear set of objectives should then be presented both to the club owners and the world. The ST can build up a "war chest" of funds as a fighting fund if things go from bad to worse. I can envisage a scenario where say the owners decide to move the club to Ebbsfleet or Kings Hill and obtain the connivance of Greenwich Council to allow the Valley to sold for housing development. The ST could swing into action straightaway by mobilsing fans to fight this, indeed maybe a helping to start a Valley Party mark 2. It may not come to that but a vibrant independant ST could become the focal point for challenging the club.
In addition and if the the ST believes the club is being run to the benefit of the fans, some of the funds gathered may be used to invest in club projects.
All of these things need to be thought through but the overall objective of a "guardian" role, in my view is key to the ST having a clear focus.
Dave you say that we could never achieve what Chesterfield or Exeter have due to our size, however I would argue that our increased size also gives us a much increased fan base. Exeter’s average attendance in a promotion season was 5,122, Chesterfield’s 3,452 and ours 20,894 in the most shambolic season I can remember. Therefore the potential is for a trust at least four times the size of those at the clubs you use as a case in point. Clearly the trust could never raise the £20m+ it would cost to buy the club, however it could become a serious stakeholder. Purchasing shares is by no means the only route available also. I think that “clarity on the overall objective that formation of such a Trust” will only begin to form after everyone has got round the table on the 4th.
Personally I think that the FF is doing a good job but that means nothing when there is no power to bring the club to account. You cannot force the issue so the club answer your questions when and how they wish. I’m not saying a trust would be an overnight remedy, it’ll take time to get us to a place where dialogue with our club is a right rather then a fleetingly exercised privilege – but it’ll be worth it and it I think an elected FF would be able to work in conjunction with the ST or even as part of the same entity.
Very glad the Fans Forum are coming along and are hopefully going to be involved. No one knows what the aims of the trust are yet as they haven't, quite rightly, been agreed. It hasn't even be decided that we should start a trust.
My hope is that people like the FF and SE9Addick and the rest of you with ideas and contributions to make come forward and want to take on the role of steering the Trust after 4th August.
As to whether the FF have done anything that is really a debate for another thread. I think they started out in the most difficult circumstances for them and the Club. They had to take time to form themselves as a group and get themselves known. Easy, as GH, to sit on the outside and say "not done a lot". Better to say what you would like them to be doing more or less of or differently. I think they have done well considering all the barriers put in their way.
[cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]Ownership of the Club, or parts of the Club may also be considered as obtainable objectives, and we note that there are examples of this at Exeter and Chesterfield. However, our feeling is that Charlton is a much bigger entity than these examples and we question whether a Supporters' Trust could raise sufficient sums of money to make such an aspiration viable.
Dave
We're bigger than Exeter but not quite as big as Barcelona, the best global example of ownership by its fans. Supporters trusts generally are a small step down the Barcelona path. We have to try to get some ownership of our Club, before its too late. And we need to stand together and remember that we all want the same relatively simple thing. A football club that makes us proud to come from round here.
Like others I'm not sure I could add anything of much value right now due to other commitments but I'm v.interested in seeing how the ST mechanism would work so I'd like to be involved. Sadly I'm away on Aug 4th so I hope there will be some kind of transcript/minutes available?
(apologies if this has already been raised, feel free to sink accordingly)
[quote][cite]Posted By: m2[/cite] I am not doubting the overall willingness of the volunteers to help but we now have the issue of exponentially decreasing calibre of chosen members. [/quote]
This is why having this as such an open ended scope. Ignoring the insulting and unjustified slur, here we have someone that is seeing this new body as some kind of alternative to what we already have in place. Where this always ends up is with one body pissing around trying to score points off one another rather than doing anything to actually benefit the club. It didn't take long.
The idea of having the Trust somehow in charge of the membership of the FF is really worrying. A bunch of people who haven't even met and who don't have any agreed objectives should be better placed to make a choice than an election? This kind of thinking has lead to some of history's most corrupt regimes. The FF were not appointed by the board: as far as I can recall all those that volunteered were appointed - if there'd been more people putting themselves forward, then it would have been put to a fans' vote in the way the old Director role was).
On a positive note: I like SE9s ideas about how the body might work - can't see any fault with any of that.
Personally I think that the FF is doing a good job but that means nothing when there is no power to bring the club to account. You cannot force the issue so the club answer your questions when and how they wish. I’m not saying a trust would be an overnight remedy, it’ll take time to get us to a place where dialogue with our club is a right rather then a fleetingly exercised privilege – but it’ll be worth it and it I think an elected FF would be able to work in conjunction with the ST or even as part of the same entity.......
I endorse the statement above, we need to act together to get a voice that is heard, and considered..... the trust is a way of achieving this, which of course has to set out it's agenda, and so forth.Fans need to feel that they can communicate with the club, and even if there views are dismissed at least be respected, especially at a club like Charlton. Wether this be part of the FF or the proposed trust or whatever the communication beetween club and fans is poor IMO, the recent months have illustrated this.
Comments
1) The fans' forum representation should come from the trust, rather than be self-appointed or appointed by the football club. This is not a criticism of the current FF participants, but I think the present arrangement lacks legitimacy and will inevitably overlap or conflict with a trust. I also think the trust, if seen to be widely based and representative of supporters in general, should have little difficulty in securing that arrangement with the football club. The club cannot sensibly argue that it should choose who represents its fans' views.
2) The Greenwich and Bexley branch of the supporters' club is serving no purpose and should be wound up. It would be quite feasible for trust members to join en masse and vote it out of existence. A broadly-based trust would be in a much better position to speak on behalf of supporters.
I wouldn't want to take an active part in the trust because I don't think I'm in a position to do so and I think there is a risk that you get the same old people with the same ideas, which discourages new people from coming forward. That - and the lack of a clear objective - was the reason the 2005 initiative did not garner much enthusiasm.
I think those are good suggestions. I guess one of the things we could talk about is the possibility that the leadership of the trust would come from the FF members - but of course that would depend on them being up for it. The two things working together (or even better - as one) would be the ideal situation.
It is up to the officers and members of the Greenwich and Bexley branch to decide to wind up or continue that branch just as it is any of the other branches or groups.
I personally would hope that some or all of the fans forum members come along to the meeting on 4th August. A lot of people will have questions and one of the aims of the meeting is to answer them hence inviting someone from Supporters' Direct.
I agree that it would be better if the fans forum had been elected and that is the way that the forum was originally designed. Later on it was decided to co-opt all the nominees onto the forum I would assume for practical operational reasons.
It certainly wasn't the choice of the forum members themselves as they weren't involved at that stage.
No reason - if it actually functioned. I just think it needs a) strengthening or b) putting out of its misery.
Supporters' club website
No doubt lost of people will just join anything on Facebook Charlton related (I'm a prime example, still being a member of the "Mark Hudson Appreciation Society" !) but the high numbers joining up show two things 1) A good awarness is now being made of the concept of the Supporters Trust and 2) If even just 10% of those who are signed up on FB come along that would be 35 just from there now and hopefully alot more by the 4th of August.
This is very dangerous thinking and would be a massive mistake. The fans' forum is absolutely 100% democratic: anyone was able to stick their heads above the parapet, could. The club didn't control that - so why should another body. Why would you want a self selecting body to be able to hold sway over those appointments. If we're looking at an equity based trust then I'm not comfortable at all with the concept that only those that can afford to are allowed to appoint people. Not the best way to get the right people for the gig. If it is just going to be a talk-shop (and I'm not at all sure that I've got any idea how it will do anything than undermine the FF, if it does, but that's another story) then you'll have a bunch of self-selected individuals choosing who is allowed to represent us. Sure, anyone can turn up to the meeting, but before long the trust will feel inclusive to some, while others will not agree with the way it develops. This happens with any organisation. So suddenly people who feel the trust does not represent them (and we've seen the number of times this board is accused - sometimes rightly usually unfairly - of harbouring cliques).
The problem with our club is not the Fans' Forum. Let's be clear about that. Personally, I think they're doing a stand-up job and represent a broad-church of our views. It's the first time that I think we've managed to get the right balance of a cordial relationship with the club and challenging where necessary. Given that the latter has happened more than at any time since the club has returned home I really can't see any concern with the current appointment system. I really am missing how we can be in any way confident that an organisation that hasn't yet met, that has no charter and no official membership is better placed to perform this appointment based on comments on four pages of an internet forum and I'm surprised nobody else is worried.
I think no one is worried because there is nothing to worry about at the moment. The meeting is one to look at viability, how the Trust may operate and what are it’s goals and aspirations.
As far as I can see it, decisions would be made on the basis of membership rather than equity holding, as all equity purchased by the trust would be held in the trusts name rather than the individual who donated that specific amount of money.
My personal wish is that the Trust would slot in alongside the Forum, basically giving it a bit of bite. It would make the board more accountable to the fans (and the Fans Forum), something which this summer has shown is sorely missing.
If possible a lot of set up time etc might be avoided. Obviously if the existing aims and objectives of the Community trust would be compromised then it wouldn't be an option.
We Hope.......
There is also the fact that the FF has achieved . . . not alot, since it started. The main shareholders have only met the FF members once in 8 months and since then they have given the FF the same smoke and mirrors job as they have the rest of the public, press and bloggers. So there is no 'inside track' or priviledged access. In fact no contact at all. Only press releases from Steve Waggott that would normally go to the media.
If the ST can succesfuly incorporate the FF (or those of its members the Trust collectively feels appropriate) then the Board (or new owners) will have a body it will have to respect - and they will because these people are businesmen who will not want to alienate their best customers.
We have an opportunity with the ST to build an organisation with the benefit of a mass of experience in what works and what doesn't. I don't know what Morticians' angle is but the ST seems pretty promising to me and a vast improvement on what we have now.
The next month should be about gaining an understanding of how the Trust could work, what its targets should be, and who is both keen and thick-skinned enough to want to take a greater involvement.
This should very much be a long-term project imo.
Would be interested in other peoples thoughts on Wycombe's Trust having to agree/vote with the club's board on moving grounds or lose the Chairman's
financial support and see the club go under?
(unless i misunderstood?)
Agree with AFKA there is a lot of work to be done and thought needed if this is to get off the ground or not as the case may be.
Spot on AFKA.
We request clarity on the overall objective that formation of such a Trust is designed to achieve. While it is easy to say that "the Trust can be whatever you want", the same can be said of any new initiative and we feel that clarity of purpose should precede even the most well-intentioned of ideas.
If a major objective is to gain a form of representation on the Board via a fans' elected director, then the stated reasons why this previous role was not allowed to continue need to be addressed. If communication between the fans and the Club is the principal objective, then surely this is currently being fulfilled by the existing Fans' Forum. The Fans' Forum is not bothered about self-preservation, but simply questions the value of creating a new group with a communications remit when one already exists. Of course, if the general consensus is that the Fans' Forum is not acheiving its objectives adequately, then that is a separate issue - and one which can be addressed more easily than by resorting to the creation a Supporters' Trust.
Ownership of the Club, or parts of the Club may also be considered as obtainable objectives, and we note that there are examples of this at Exeter and Chesterfield. However, our feeling is that Charlton is a much bigger entity than these examples and we question whether a Supporters' Trust could raise sufficient sums of money to make such an aspiration viable.
Despite these questioning comments, the Fans' Forum welcomes any intiative designed to improve communications between fans and the Club. To that end, we will be in attendance on 4th August and will listen openly and contribute fully to the discussion. If a positive outcome is envisaged, the Fans' Forum will be delighted to play a part in that - even at the expense of its own role and future.
Our qualifications include the fact that we know what is required of new members and can ensure that anyone appointed knows what they are letting themselves in for ............ something which we, of course, did not benefit from on our 'appointment', because no-one knew.
'Exponentially decreasing'? Interesting take. How about 'strengthening our skill sets, improving the balance and scope of our representation of fans'? You say 'tomato' and I say ........ err ........ 'tomato'.
[quote][cite]Posted By: m2[/cite]There is also the fact that the FF has achieved . . . not alot, since it started. The main shareholders have only met the FF members once in 8 months and since then they have given the FF the same smoke and mirrors job as they have the rest of the public, press and bloggers. So there is no 'inside track' or priviledged access. In fact no contact at all. Only press releases from Steve Waggott that would normally go to the media[/quote]
We'd be interested to know what your definition of 'achieving a lot' might be. Let us know. We have gained a great deal more output from the Club than press releases from Steve Waggott. Have you read our output? Was the cancelled Q&A not in itself a piece of thirst-quenching communication in an otherwise arid desert of Summer Silence from the Club?
Everyone is welcome to their view, of course, but the way to improve things where dissatisfaction exists is to offer positive suggestions for improvement. Phrases like 'has achieved .... not a lot' don't really help.
We already have the Fans Forum and the Shareholders-----------to be honest the shareholders OWN the club and should have done/or do more. They actually have power something the FD/FF didnt or dont. No idea why we as shareholders havnt actually at least tabled one agenga item re the AGM. Of course the vote is bogus as RM/DC etc dwarf the rest of the small scale shareholders, but they HAVE to respond to a tabled item.
IMO im with Airman on the Trust and FF issue. not saying all from the FF should be drawn from the trust but some have to.
Agenda items :
*aims
*cash
*trusties
PS I`ll look after the cash. My address is PO Box 1212, CO Deanos Bar,Pattaya, Thailand
In addition and if the the ST believes the club is being run to the benefit of the fans, some of the funds gathered may be used to invest in club projects.
All of these things need to be thought through but the overall objective of a "guardian" role, in my view is key to the ST having a clear focus.
Personally I think that the FF is doing a good job but that means nothing when there is no power to bring the club to account. You cannot force the issue so the club answer your questions when and how they wish. I’m not saying a trust would be an overnight remedy, it’ll take time to get us to a place where dialogue with our club is a right rather then a fleetingly exercised privilege – but it’ll be worth it and it I think an elected FF would be able to work in conjunction with the ST or even as part of the same entity.
My hope is that people like the FF and SE9Addick and the rest of you with ideas and contributions to make come forward and want to take on the role of steering the Trust after 4th August.
As to whether the FF have done anything that is really a debate for another thread. I think they started out in the most difficult circumstances for them and the Club. They had to take time to form themselves as a group and get themselves known. Easy, as GH, to sit on the outside and say "not done a lot". Better to say what you would like them to be doing more or less of or differently. I think they have done well considering all the barriers put in their way.
And they did have a hard act to follow : - )
Dave
We're bigger than Exeter but not quite as big as Barcelona, the best global example of ownership by its fans. Supporters trusts generally are a small step down the Barcelona path. We have to try to get some ownership of our Club, before its too late. And we need to stand together and remember that we all want the same relatively simple thing. A football club that makes us proud to come from round here.
(apologies if this has already been raised, feel free to sink accordingly)
[/quote]
This is why having this as such an open ended scope. Ignoring the insulting and unjustified slur, here we have someone that is seeing this new body as some kind of alternative to what we already have in place. Where this always ends up is with one body pissing around trying to score points off one another rather than doing anything to actually benefit the club. It didn't take long.
The idea of having the Trust somehow in charge of the membership of the FF is really worrying. A bunch of people who haven't even met and who don't have any agreed objectives should be better placed to make a choice than an election? This kind of thinking has lead to some of history's most corrupt regimes. The FF were not appointed by the board: as far as I can recall all those that volunteered were appointed - if there'd been more people putting themselves forward, then it would have been put to a fans' vote in the way the old Director role was).
On a positive note: I like SE9s ideas about how the body might work - can't see any fault with any of that.
I endorse the statement above, we need to act together to get a voice that is heard, and considered..... the trust is a way of achieving this, which of course has to set out it's agenda, and so forth.Fans need to feel that they can communicate with the club, and even if there views are dismissed at least be respected, especially at a club like Charlton. Wether this be part of the FF or the proposed trust or whatever the communication beetween club and fans is poor IMO, the recent months have illustrated this.