I'm actually surprised at how supportive the club are - of all the trusts who have applied for ACV status for their home grounds none have had such strong and public backing from their club.
Early doors, but credit to those at the club that see the importance of some form of fan consultation and partnership, and there are some. But certainly no time for complacency.
At the same time, CAS Trust are dermined to labour under all and any environments for the good of CAFC, and with a realistic view of the commercial realities and position of our club, and will continue to do so with support from fans.
Great news, you guys have worked so hard for CAFC. To have been recognised is quite an achievement. I fully agree with Henry , it's the best £5 I've spent this year as well. Hopefully this news will encourage everyone to help out and sign the petition.
The use of the word current between no and plans is the sort of thing you see from politicians when an unpopular decision is under consideration but still a way off. If we get the status we will be consulted. You know what? If the Valley does not become an ACV it wiould be a piss poor state of affairs if we aren't consulted anyway.
I don't like to be negative and was one of the earlier signer-uppers to both the petition and CAST but you could see the circumstances in which the CAFC Board would see this as moving this matter on at no significant risk to their options. In fact saying nothing would raise negative speculation about their current plans and opposing would send out a clear warning.
Whilst for me, like LenGlover, Charlton = Valley I am aware that is not a universal view ( read earlier threads for dissenting views). As my generation is gradually displaced demographically by those who never knew the old stadium the possibility of a move will become more realistic - if and only if it made commercial sense to an owner who may or may not hold the same sentiments as me in his or her heart. A delay in developing the Valley wouldn't deter a new American Sheikh Oligarch but might well cause less well off investors to stop and think.
It is an important debate and CAST is right to do what little it can to exert influence. By the way 600 is not enough to have parted with their fiver. With a fan base of around 16000 Valley regulars and a good few more occasionals and away supporters I hope the number will swiftly rise to at least 2000 a number that is less than 10% of those who call themselves Addicks. Come on, if you haven't signed up what are you waiting for?
exactly why we need more members, volunteers, ideas, donations etc all welcome
although CAFC could have said nothing, instead they have promoted this which helps the cause of the Trust at least, and hopefully more so than being against..
The use of the word current between no and plans is the sort of thing you see from politicians when an unpopular decision is under consideration but still a way off. If we get the status we will be consulted. You know what? If the Valley does not become an ACV it wiould be a piss poor state of affairs if we aren't consulted anyway.
I don't like to be negative and was one of the earlier signer-uppers to both the petition and CAST but you could see the circumstances in which the CAFC Board would see this as moving this matter on at no significant risk to their options. In fact saying nothing would raise negative speculation about their current plans and opposing would send out a clear warning.
Whilst for me, like LenGlover, Charlton = Valley I am aware that is not a universal view ( read earlier threads for dissenting views). As my generation is gradually displaced demographically by those who never knew the old stadium the possibility of a move will become more realistic - if and only if it made commercial sense to an owner who may or may not hold the same sentiments as me in his or her heart. A delay in developing the Valley wouldn't deter a new American Sheikh Oligarch but might well cause less well off investors to stop and think.
It is an important debate and CAST is right to do what little it can to exert influence. By the way 600 is not enough to have parted with their fiver. With a fan base of around 16000 Valley regulars and a good few more occasionals and away supporters I hope the number will swiftly rise to at least 2000 a number that is less than 10% of those who call themselves Addicks. Come on, if you haven't signed up what are you waiting for?
It is very difficult to have definite opinions about a move, as it would depend on the circumstances.
1) Club is broke, or is owned by dodgy owners, wants to groundshare with Millwall or Gillingham (god forbid) and flog off The Valley. No question, there will be a mass movement of united Charlton fans fighting against this
2) Sheikh filthy rich has pumped in lots of money into the club, we're a successful PL club, with a waiting list for season tickets, so either need to expand the Valley or build a new ground. Our 40000 seater plans at the Valley are rejected due to planning problems, so reluctantly the owners plan a new 40000 stadium with more revenue making capabilities. Chris Powell says he supports the move, as Charlton will never reach their potential without the new stadium. An unlikely scenario perhaps, but one in which a lot of supporters would be for the new ground.
If Charlton had stayed at The Valley back in 1985, I suspect that when the Taylor report came out, we would have looked to build a new ground in the 90s, like Millwall ended up doing, or comparable clubs like Middlesbrough and Huddersfield, all of which faced similar issues.
However, I can't help but feel cynical about the 'support' for the Trust from the club. Doesn't do us any harm but I see it solely as a PR exercise by them. As far as certain people at the club are concerned, the Trust is irrelevant and can be steam-rollered over as and when their need arises.
Of course, the stronger the Trust get, the better opportunity we have to fight.
The use of the word current between no and plans is the sort of thing you see from politicians when an unpopular decision is under consideration but still a way off. If we get the status we will be consulted. You know what? If the Valley does not become an ACV it wiould be a piss poor state of affairs if we aren't consulted anyway.
I don't like to be negative and was one of the earlier signer-uppers to both the petition and CAST but you could see the circumstances in which the CAFC Board would see this as moving this matter on at no significant risk to their options. In fact saying nothing would raise negative speculation about their current plans and opposing would send out a clear warning.
Whilst for me, like LenGlover, Charlton = Valley I am aware that is not a universal view ( read earlier threads for dissenting views). As my generation is gradually displaced demographically by those who never knew the old stadium the possibility of a move will become more realistic - if and only if it made commercial sense to an owner who may or may not hold the same sentiments as me in his or her heart. A delay in developing the Valley wouldn't deter a new American Sheikh Oligarch but might well cause less well off investors to stop and think.
It is an important debate and CAST is right to do what little it can to exert influence. By the way 600 is not enough to have parted with their fiver. With a fan base of around 16000 Valley regulars and a good few more occasionals and away supporters I hope the number will swiftly rise to at least 2000 a number that is less than 10% of those who call themselves Addicks. Come on, if you haven't signed up what are you waiting for?
It is very difficult to have definite opinions about a move, as it would depend on the circumstances.
1) Club is broke, or is owned by dodgy owners, wants to groundshare with Millwall or Gillingham (god forbid) and flog off The Valley. No question, there will be a mass movement of united Charlton fans fighting against this
2) Sheikh filthy rich has pumped in lots of money into the club, we're a successful PL club, with a waiting list for season tickets, so either need to expand the Valley or build a new ground. Our 40000 seater plans at the Valley are rejected due to planning problems, so reluctantly the owners plan a new 40000 stadium with more revenue making capabilities. Chris Powell says he supports the move, as Charlton will never reach their potential without the new stadium. An unlikely scenario perhaps, but one in which a lot of supporters would be for the new ground.
If Charlton had stayed at The Valley back in 1985, I suspect that when the Taylor report came out, we would have looked to build a new ground in the 90s, like Millwall ended up doing, or comparable clubs like Middlesbrough and Huddersfield, all of which faced similar issues.
I agree with all this: circumstances change, attitudes change, and a new generation of fans replaces old farts like me. While I entirely respect the many fans' loyalty to The Valley at all costs, I wasn't one of the refuseniks, and adapted quickly to our temporary lodgings at Parkhurst Cell and Upton Park. To me, the performances on the pitch are paramount - don't forget we were promoted to the top tier after an absence of 29 years while we were playing at Sell-Out Park.
However, I can't help but feel cynical about the 'support' for the Trust from the club. Doesn't do us any harm but I see it solely as a PR exercise by them. As far as certain people at the club are concerned, the Trust is irrelevant and can be steam-rollered over as and when their need arises.
Of course, the stronger the Trust get, the better opportunity we have to fight.
First it was 100 members at the launch last December... then our phase 2 and we gained another 200 members... then phase 3 and have just about made target of 300 additions ... which adds up to 600
And that doesn't even capture how the subcribers and Twitter follower numbers have climbed from 1,000 to 3,000... And the website hits have also climbed from 1,000 to 3,000 per week
Now phase 4 has started with real activity as opposed to a simple appeal - with ACV and some other activities to follow it is going to be ambitious - 400 members please to take us to 1,000 and another 2,000 contacts to get upto 5,000!
At what point does the Trust stop being insignificant? Perhaps a good survey question?! And at what point do you as a fan join in with activities to make it grow bigger and quicker?
For this supporters Trust is different from all of the others in that it is built on supporter activity and ideas and NOT as a reaction to some burning building!
The use of the word current between no and plans is the sort of thing you see from politicians when an unpopular decision is under consideration but still a way off. If we get the status we will be consulted. You know what? If the Valley does not become an ACV it wiould be a piss poor state of affairs if we aren't consulted anyway.
I don't like to be negative and was one of the earlier signer-uppers to both the petition and CAST but you could see the circumstances in which the CAFC Board would see this as moving this matter on at no significant risk to their options. In fact saying nothing would raise negative speculation about their current plans and opposing would send out a clear warning.
Whilst for me, like LenGlover, Charlton = Valley I am aware that is not a universal view ( read earlier threads for dissenting views). As my generation is gradually displaced demographically by those who never knew the old stadium the possibility of a move will become more realistic - if and only if it made commercial sense to an owner who may or may not hold the same sentiments as me in his or her heart. A delay in developing the Valley wouldn't deter a new American Sheikh Oligarch but might well cause less well off investors to stop and think.
It is an important debate and CAST is right to do what little it can to exert influence. By the way 600 is not enough to have parted with their fiver. With a fan base of around 16000 Valley regulars and a good few more occasionals and away supporters I hope the number will swiftly rise to at least 2000 a number that is less than 10% of those who call themselves Addicks. Come on, if you haven't signed up what are you waiting for?
It is very difficult to have definite opinions about a move, as it would depend on the circumstances.
1) Club is broke, or is owned by dodgy owners, wants to groundshare with Millwall or Gillingham (god forbid) and flog off The Valley. No question, there will be a mass movement of united Charlton fans fighting against this
2) Sheikh filthy rich has pumped in lots of money into the club, we're a successful PL club, with a waiting list for season tickets, so either need to expand the Valley or build a new ground. Our 40000 seater plans at the Valley are rejected due to planning problems, so reluctantly the owners plan a new 40000 stadium with more revenue making capabilities. Chris Powell says he supports the move, as Charlton will never reach their potential without the new stadium. An unlikely scenario perhaps, but one in which a lot of supporters would be for the new ground.
If Charlton had stayed at The Valley back in 1985, I suspect that when the Taylor report came out, we would have looked to build a new ground in the 90s, like Millwall ended up doing, or comparable clubs like Middlesbrough and Huddersfield, all of which faced similar issues.
I agree with all this: circumstances change, attitudes change, and a new generation of fans replaces old farts like me. While I entirely respect the many fans' loyalty to The Valley at all costs, I wasn't one of the refuseniks, and adapted quickly to our temporary lodgings at Parkhurst Cell and Upton Park. To me, the performances on the pitch are paramount - don't forget we were promoted to the top tier after an absence of 29 years while we were playing at Sell-Out Park.
Well I respect your opinion, but I couldn't agree less. When we got promoted at Sell out I felt empty and betrayed. Only the away games gave me any real sense of identity with the success on the field.
A football club provides its fans with a sense of place, a tribe which they belong to no matter how far around the world they travel, and which is continued through generations, while players managers and owners come and go. If your club is the only one for miles around, e.g Leicester, then I suppose you can tamper with the place. But if your club is in London, where the sense of place is more subtle, you mess with it at your peril.
The use of the word current between no and plans is the sort of thing you see from politicians when an unpopular decision is under consideration but still a way off. If we get the status we will be consulted. You know what? If the Valley does not become an ACV it wiould be a piss poor state of affairs if we aren't consulted anyway.
I don't like to be negative and was one of the earlier signer-uppers to both the petition and CAST but you could see the circumstances in which the CAFC Board would see this as moving this matter on at no significant risk to their options. In fact saying nothing would raise negative speculation about their current plans and opposing would send out a clear warning.
Whilst for me, like LenGlover, Charlton = Valley I am aware that is not a universal view ( read earlier threads for dissenting views). As my generation is gradually displaced demographically by those who never knew the old stadium the possibility of a move will become more realistic - if and only if it made commercial sense to an owner who may or may not hold the same sentiments as me in his or her heart. A delay in developing the Valley wouldn't deter a new American Sheikh Oligarch but might well cause less well off investors to stop and think.
It is an important debate and CAST is right to do what little it can to exert influence. By the way 600 is not enough to have parted with their fiver. With a fan base of around 16000 Valley regulars and a good few more occasionals and away supporters I hope the number will swiftly rise to at least 2000 a number that is less than 10% of those who call themselves Addicks. Come on, if you haven't signed up what are you waiting for?
It is very difficult to have definite opinions about a move, as it would depend on the circumstances.
1) Club is broke, or is owned by dodgy owners, wants to groundshare with Millwall or Gillingham (god forbid) and flog off The Valley. No question, there will be a mass movement of united Charlton fans fighting against this
2) Sheikh filthy rich has pumped in lots of money into the club, we're a successful PL club, with a waiting list for season tickets, so either need to expand the Valley or build a new ground. Our 40000 seater plans at the Valley are rejected due to planning problems, so reluctantly the owners plan a new 40000 stadium with more revenue making capabilities. Chris Powell says he supports the move, as Charlton will never reach their potential without the new stadium. An unlikely scenario perhaps, but one in which a lot of supporters would be for the new ground.
If Charlton had stayed at The Valley back in 1985, I suspect that when the Taylor report came out, we would have looked to build a new ground in the 90s, like Millwall ended up doing, or comparable clubs like Middlesbrough and Huddersfield, all of which faced similar issues.
I agree with all this: circumstances change, attitudes change, and a new generation of fans replaces old farts like me. While I entirely respect the many fans' loyalty to The Valley at all costs, I wasn't one of the refuseniks, and adapted quickly to our temporary lodgings at Parkhurst Cell and Upton Park. To me, the performances on the pitch are paramount - don't forget we were promoted to the top tier after an absence of 29 years while we were playing at Sell-Out Park.
Well I respect your opinion, but I couldn't agree less. When we got promoted at Sell out I felt empty and betrayed. Only the away games gave me any real sense of identity with the success on the field.
A football club provides its fans with a sense of place, a tribe which they belong to no matter how far around the world they travel, and which is continued through generations, while players managers and owners come and go. If your club is the only one for miles around, e.g Leicester, then I suppose you can tamper with the place. But if your club is in London, where the sense of place is more subtle, you mess with it at your peril.
I wouldn't for one second try to disagree with you, Prague. I think the degree of strength of our attachment to The Valley is in some ways determined by our own individual sensibilities and lifetime experiences. In a similar way, some people are constitutionally disposed to living in the same house for all of their adult life, while others need a peripatetic lifestyle with frequent changes. Once I had got over the shock of being evicted from The Valley I quickly adjusted to our new abode at Parkhurst Cell and looked upon our residence there as a new challenge, a fresh opportunity. In a way, our games there had the flavour of away fixtures, with the dislocation itself sparking a new urgency, a spirit of adventure. Conversely, home games in a ground that has become as familiar as an old slipper can be dulled or enervated by the collective expectancy that we should win every time.
Of course, to many fans The Valley is also a long-established social venue. I am amazed that my neighbour in the Lower North, a fellow season-ticket holder, routinely spends half the game chatting to his neighbour about her caravan at Camber Sands. And she, a perfectly fit woman, doesn't even bother to get to her feet when the action reaches the Covered End and everyone in front of her stands up and blocks her view. Each to his or her own, of course, but this sort of complacency mildly shocks me - as does the morgue-like lack of atmosphere that frequently prevails. During many games at The Valley last season I found our cowed silence while the South Stand was rocking really quite embarrassing.
As a regular supporter for almost 50 years I have absolutely no wish to leave The Valley; my loyalty to the club and the team is for ever. Yet, if at some point we were to move to a new stadium on the Greenwich Peninsula, for example, the change of surroundings might just inspire a new generation of fans and shake us oldies out of our slumber.
Now phase 4 has started with real activity as opposed to a simple appeal - with ACV and some other activities to follow it is going to be ambitious - 400 members please to take us to 1,000 and another 2,000 contacts to get upto 5,000!
Have I missed something here?
Another 400 takes the number to 1,000 then another 2,000 makes it 5,000. I thought 1+2 was 3! ;-)
With all the discussion of the limits of the ACV it is interesting that you should allude to the fact that it is an 'activity' being used to raise membership.
I've read most of this thread in one go today. I had already signed up to the ACV. I don't, personally, think it will make any difference, but it does raise the profile of the Trust and fans in general, and I think this is a good thing. I remember something in the media a few months ago where Chelsea held a consultation about Stanford Bridge. I can't remember the details now, and obviously, Chelsea are a bigger draw for the media, but I applaud the work that has gone into doing this.
However, I tend to agree with AFKA, I don't believe that the Trust has to be seen to be doing anything in particular. Sure they want to keep growing awareness and increase support - safety in numbers and all that, but the main aim of the Trust is to 'To Preserve Charlton Athletic Football Club for This and Future Generations'. I read that as doing what ever is necessary to ensure preservation. Sometimes there will be no immediate threat to the club and I'm not sure the Trust need to go looking for one.
I've just been on the Trust web site and it looks very professional, all be it that I've not looked at any other clubs' Trust sites, and the articles are interesting and well written. From memory I believe that the main, initial, trust was established from members of CL. I'd be interested to know just how much involvement there is in the team running things comes from people that are not on here. I think this will be crucial in understanding how to reach those that do not spend a lot of time looking at Charlton related web sites - forums, blogs etc.
If it's of any interest (and I didn't intend to change topic - I can't see the need for a new thread) my Dad, who is 71, has been a fan for over 60 years, he buys the program and the VOTV (and did in the past) and he reads every page of every one. He doesn't really know what the trust is or what they are doing. He is not on here but goes onto the OS (when he has to these days) and reads a number of blogs - including my own. Despite being in good health, he is not going to live for ever and is probably too old to get involved in something big should the need arise. However, I suspect that there are many that would be interested and perhaps campaigns that are predominately internet based will pass these people by.
I have no idea of numbers and chances are, if most of the research done by the Trust has come from CL or the CAST site, nor will the Trust, but there will, probably, be a large proportion of Charlton fans that do not spend a lot of time on the internet. Many will not work at a desk with a computer and many will just not be competent and/or interested in doing so.
If this is the case I suspect that most of the awareness of the trust and most of the feedback will have come from a certain demographic - especially true if it has all been collated via the internet. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it is entirely possible that most of the Trust members are CL members and vice versa. If this is the case then there is, obviously, a limit to the number of members that can be relied upon to sign up.
I'm not offering any solutions, and maybe the Trust committee already have plans in place to cater for those people, but without criticising, and I'm really not, and taking into account it's, relative, youth I think to be taken seriously the Trust needs to have nearer to 10,000 members.
Again, can I reiterate that I'm not knocking the Trust for only having 600 members at this stage, but I just think that the internet, for it's great benefits, is not going to be enough to get this established.
Presumably there are plans to produce this again this coming season. I don't think though that you could produce this outside the season as distribution would mean a massive postal bill.
KHA thats our treasurer getting carried away with numbers, bless him. I welcome input on what the Trust should be doing, in fact I wish we had more debate and input on that.
But the membership drive is important, possibly more important than ACV. To get the trust established in good time, and with enough members and perhaps just as important the network generally which includes subscribers followers etc we then have an established trust. The larger the paid members the more we can say the Trust is properly backed by x amount of CAFC fans.
Of course there is a debate over what we should or could do. Perhaps joining the trust at this stage is even more important than signing the petition, because a trust can make up in some ways for the weakness in the legislation, it can lobby the government and MPs for change, it can lobby the club for change, etc, etc
I think 1000 members and 5000 total network is a good target for this 'phase'. But I would love to see this double if not more.
On the other points:
We have reached non CL (twitter, newsnow, club bulletin) in large numbers, CL is still significant but nowhere near what it was.
We also distributed circa 7000 paper versions of TNT, and did 3000 or so flyers in attempts to reach non internet folk some by hand some by postal to branch members of those branches who wanted it. We have had a fair number of applications by post, which is always nice when we go to the beehive for a pint meeting, we get 14 or so applications.
We have had press in the local media, BBC London radio, SLP, NShopper, Radio Kent.
We will hopefully be having match day presence from now on, but we need volunteers to help. On Saturday we will be outside main reception, then ongoing hopefully outside the North stand.
So yes we are aware of non web users, I would like as many members as possible, and we continue to look at ways of reaching them with the resources we have.
Should a trust always be doing something?
I guess that depends. I personally want a trust for its own sake, but also to bring about change, to research and inform fans on developments on changes in governance and the financial realities of todays game, to support the grass roots of our club, to represent fans, and lots of other stuff Believe me there is always something to do. Bottom line is we formed a trust because we felt there was lots to do. Perhaps when we had a fans director, and fans in the club and board room and a vibrant CASC, we didn't need one, who knows?
Thanks for the compliments about the website, we are gradually getting more contributions. Sorry we couldn't use your article by the way, it duplicated something we already had. But anyone who wants to contribute please drop me an email. I think generally we are doing stuff that no one else is doing, sure there is some cross over but I think we just add to the rich tapestry that is Charlton. As we get bigger the input we receive gets wider, match day stalls, club day etc.
Inevitably a lot will be web based - its the new thing you know - plus a lot will be on CL, it is by far the biggest independent source of news for Addicks.
Oh and TNF (TNT issue 4) should be out in time for Leicester, and free.
Comments
Thanks
At the same time, CAS Trust are dermined to labour under all and any environments for the good of CAFC, and with a realistic view of the commercial realities and position of our club, and will continue to do so with support from fans.
And you can sign the petition here -
http://www.castrust.org/petition-valley-acv-campaign/
I don't like to be negative and was one of the earlier signer-uppers to both the petition and CAST but you could see the circumstances in which the CAFC Board would see this as moving this matter on at no significant risk to their options. In fact saying nothing would raise negative speculation about their current plans and opposing would send out a clear warning.
Whilst for me, like LenGlover, Charlton = Valley I am aware that is not a universal view ( read earlier threads for dissenting views). As my generation is gradually displaced demographically by those who never knew the old stadium the possibility of a move will become more realistic - if and only if it made commercial sense to an owner who may or may not hold the same sentiments as me in his or her heart. A delay in developing the Valley wouldn't deter a new American Sheikh Oligarch
but might well cause less well off investors to stop and think.
It is an important debate and CAST is right to do what little it can to exert influence. By the way 600 is not enough to have parted with their fiver. With a fan base of around 16000 Valley regulars and a good few more occasionals and away supporters I hope the number will swiftly rise to at least 2000 a number that is less than 10% of those who call themselves Addicks. Come on, if you haven't signed up what are you waiting for?
although CAFC could have said nothing, instead they have promoted this which helps the cause of the Trust at least, and hopefully more so than being against..
The valley is the paradigm example of a community asset, having already been subject to blood sweat and tears from the locals.
Good luck
1) Club is broke, or is owned by dodgy owners, wants to groundshare with Millwall or Gillingham (god forbid) and flog off The Valley. No question, there will be a mass movement of united Charlton fans fighting against this
2) Sheikh filthy rich has pumped in lots of money into the club, we're a successful PL club, with a waiting list for season tickets, so either need to expand the Valley or build a new ground. Our 40000 seater plans at the Valley are rejected due to planning problems, so reluctantly the owners plan a new 40000 stadium with more revenue making capabilities. Chris Powell says he supports the move, as Charlton will never reach their potential without the new stadium. An unlikely scenario perhaps, but one in which a lot of supporters would be for the new ground.
If Charlton had stayed at The Valley back in 1985, I suspect that when the Taylor report came out, we would have looked to build a new ground in the 90s, like Millwall ended up doing, or comparable clubs like Middlesbrough and Huddersfield, all of which faced similar issues.
However, I can't help but feel cynical about the 'support' for the Trust from the club. Doesn't do us any harm but I see it solely as a PR exercise by them. As far as certain people at the club are concerned, the Trust is irrelevant and can be steam-rollered over as and when their need arises.
Of course, the stronger the Trust get, the better opportunity we have to fight.
http://castrust.org/valleyacv-blog
for the latest on the ACV campaign
And also our new History page, featuring articles on our past that may interest you
http://castrust.org/history including an article on the Valley Party from a certain well known Charlton fan
And that doesn't even capture how the subcribers and Twitter follower numbers have climbed from 1,000 to 3,000... And the website hits have also climbed from 1,000 to 3,000 per week
Now phase 4 has started with real activity as opposed to a simple appeal - with ACV and some other activities to follow it is going to be ambitious - 400 members please to take us to 1,000 and another 2,000 contacts to get upto 5,000!
At what point does the Trust stop being insignificant? Perhaps a good survey question?! And at what point do you as a fan join in with activities to make it grow bigger and quicker?
For this supporters Trust is different from all of the others in that it is built on supporter activity and ideas and NOT as a reaction to some burning building!
A football club provides its fans with a sense of place, a tribe which they belong to no matter how far around the world they travel, and which is continued through generations, while players managers and owners come and go. If your club is the only one for miles around, e.g Leicester, then I suppose you can tamper with the place. But if your club is in London, where the sense of place is more subtle, you mess with it at your peril.
Of course, to many fans The Valley is also a long-established social venue. I am amazed that my neighbour in the Lower North, a fellow season-ticket holder, routinely spends half the game chatting to his neighbour about her caravan at Camber Sands. And she, a perfectly fit woman, doesn't even bother to get to her feet when the action reaches the Covered End and everyone in front of her stands up and blocks her view. Each to his or her own, of course, but this sort of complacency mildly shocks me - as does the morgue-like lack of atmosphere that frequently prevails. During many games at The Valley last season I found our cowed silence while the South Stand was rocking really quite embarrassing.
As a regular supporter for almost 50 years I have absolutely no wish to leave The Valley; my loyalty to the club and the team is for ever. Yet, if at some point we were to move to a new stadium on the Greenwich Peninsula, for example, the change of surroundings might just inspire a new generation of fans and shake us oldies out of our slumber.
Have I missed something here?
Another 400 takes the number to 1,000 then another 2,000 makes it 5,000. I thought 1+2 was 3! ;-)
With all the discussion of the limits of the ACV it is interesting that you should allude to the fact that it is an 'activity' being used to raise membership.
I've read most of this thread in one go today. I had already signed up to the ACV. I don't, personally, think it will make any difference, but it does raise the profile of the Trust and fans in general, and I think this is a good thing. I remember something in the media a few months ago where Chelsea held a consultation about Stanford Bridge. I can't remember the details now, and obviously, Chelsea are a bigger draw for the media, but I applaud the work that has gone into doing this.
However, I tend to agree with AFKA, I don't believe that the Trust has to be seen to be doing anything in particular. Sure they want to keep growing awareness and increase support - safety in numbers and all that, but the main aim of the Trust is to 'To Preserve Charlton Athletic Football Club for This and Future Generations'. I read that as doing what ever is necessary to ensure preservation. Sometimes there will be no immediate threat to the club and I'm not sure the Trust need to go looking for one.
I've just been on the Trust web site and it looks very professional, all be it that I've not looked at any other clubs' Trust sites, and the articles are interesting and well written. From memory I believe that the main, initial, trust was established from members of CL. I'd be interested to know just how much involvement there is in the team running things comes from people that are not on here. I think this will be crucial in understanding how to reach those that do not spend a lot of time looking at Charlton related web sites - forums, blogs etc.
If it's of any interest (and I didn't intend to change topic - I can't see the need for a new thread) my Dad, who is 71, has been a fan for over 60 years, he buys the program and the VOTV (and did in the past) and he reads every page of every one. He doesn't really know what the trust is or what they are doing. He is not on here but goes onto the OS (when he has to these days) and reads a number of blogs - including my own. Despite being in good health, he is not going to live for ever and is probably too old to get involved in something big should the need arise. However, I suspect that there are many that would be interested and perhaps campaigns that are predominately internet based will pass these people by.
I have no idea of numbers and chances are, if most of the research done by the Trust has come from CL or the CAST site, nor will the Trust, but there will, probably, be a large proportion of Charlton fans that do not spend a lot of time on the internet. Many will not work at a desk with a computer and many will just not be competent and/or interested in doing so.
If this is the case I suspect that most of the awareness of the trust and most of the feedback will have come from a certain demographic - especially true if it has all been collated via the internet. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it is entirely possible that most of the Trust members are CL members and vice versa. If this is the case then there is, obviously, a limit to the number of members that can be relied upon to sign up.
I'm not offering any solutions, and maybe the Trust committee already have plans in place to cater for those people, but without criticising, and I'm really not, and taking into account it's, relative, youth I think to be taken seriously the Trust needs to have nearer to 10,000 members.
Again, can I reiterate that I'm not knocking the Trust for only having 600 members at this stage, but I just think that the internet, for it's great benefits, is not going to be enough to get this established.
There have been three editions to date:
http://www.castrust.org/news/newsletters/
Presumably there are plans to produce this again this coming season. I don't think though that you could produce this outside the season as distribution would mean a massive postal bill.
But the membership drive is important, possibly more important than ACV. To get the trust established in good time, and with enough members and perhaps just as important the network generally which includes subscribers followers etc we then have an established trust. The larger the paid members the more we can say the Trust is properly backed by x amount of CAFC fans.
Of course there is a debate over what we should or could do. Perhaps joining the trust at this stage is even more important than signing the petition, because a trust can make up in some ways for the weakness in the legislation, it can lobby the government and MPs for change, it can lobby the club for change, etc, etc
I think 1000 members and 5000 total network is a good target for this 'phase'. But I would love to see this double if not more.
On the other points:
We have reached non CL (twitter, newsnow, club bulletin) in large numbers, CL is still significant but nowhere near what it was.
We also distributed circa 7000 paper versions of TNT, and did 3000 or so flyers in attempts to reach non internet folk some by hand some by postal to branch members of those branches who wanted it. We have had a fair number of applications by post, which is always nice when we go to the beehive for a
pintmeeting, we get 14 or so applications.We have had press in the local media, BBC London radio, SLP, NShopper, Radio Kent.
We will hopefully be having match day presence from now on, but we need volunteers to help. On Saturday we will be outside main reception, then ongoing hopefully outside the North stand.
So yes we are aware of non web users, I would like as many members as possible, and we continue to look at ways of reaching them with the resources we have.
Should a trust always be doing something?
I guess that depends. I personally want a trust for its own sake, but also to bring about change, to research and inform fans on developments on changes in governance and the financial realities of todays game, to support the grass roots of our club, to represent fans, and lots of other stuff Believe me there is always something to do. Bottom line is we formed a trust because we felt there was lots to do. Perhaps when we had a fans director, and fans in the club and board room and a vibrant CASC, we didn't need one, who knows?
Thanks for the compliments about the website, we are gradually getting more contributions. Sorry we couldn't use your article by the way, it duplicated something we already had. But anyone who wants to contribute please drop me an email. I think generally we are doing stuff that no one else is doing, sure there is some cross over but I think we just add to the rich tapestry that is Charlton. As we get bigger the input we receive gets wider, match day stalls, club day etc.
Inevitably a lot will be web based - its the new thing you know - plus a lot will be on CL, it is by far the biggest independent source of news for Addicks.
Oh and TNF (TNT issue 4) should be out in time for Leicester, and free.
I hope that covers all the points
Cheers
BR