I am getting a bit concerned about the role of the Supporters Trust. I am also a member but I didn't expect the Trust to be used by Prothoro and the owners as a sort of PR Company. That to me is not the role of the Trust. I am thinking very strongly of withdrawing from the Trust as I don't believe the way they are going is the right way. The Trust has become a lap dog for Prothoro and the owners.
I am getting a bit concerned about the role of the Supporters Trust. I am also a member but I didn't expect the Trust to be used by Prothoro and the owners as a sort of PR Company. That to me is not the role of the Trust. I am thinking very strongly of withdrawing from the Trust as I don't believe the way they are going is the right way. The Trust has become a lap dog for Prothoro and the owners.
Really? Have I missed something? Can you explain to me why you think that?
There are a handful of key assets that we need to sign up for longer contracts (e.g Wiggins, Yann, Hamer), but most of the other players are of the sort who will in the modern football world have to cope with short contracts, e.g. the likes of Dervite and Wood. If after this year they sign on for another year, then great. If they don't, well we can probably find someone of a similar level also on a free.
I agree although I would add Powell, Dyer and Matthew to the assets. Morrison and Stephens also while Wood is becoming a key part of the team. But that does rather prove your point as we got him on a free and could either re-sign him or find a similar replacement.
Can I just reconfirm here that at present I am the spokesman for CAS Trust, but by and large we post things under castrust that are official on here. And of course our website and channels.
That doesn't stop other board members and our members getting into debates on here. Its a balance of course between wanting debate and comments, and of course people confusing opinions with policy. If anyone members or not doesn't like what the trust is doing feel free to inbox me direct, we have also just embarked on a feedback survey so fans can tell us how they think we should deal with the club. Just like the fan base generally the trust is a broad church and I am not inclined to tell anyone they can't voice their opinions on a message board.
Our approach until now has been one of a critical friend, where we agree we try and work together, where we disagree we say so but we manage that, by which I mean we give them a chance to respond before going live with anything. I expect we cannot please everyone all the time, but I can tell you we are no apologists for anyone. Interestingly we discussed this at last nights meeting (anyone can come along to these you would be more than welcome).
I would ask people to be patient particularly over coming weeks, and for those who want to contribute and help with analysis and criticism when due to email/inbox me so we can take that on board, if not invite you on to the board. I have made numerous attempt to engage with the more vociferous people on here to bring them into the trust as contributors. If anyone feels we have been too lenient or too critical etc again please inbox me and or come to meetings.
I would also suggest all members read our aims and objectives and rules, this lays out our positive approach to the relationship. We are determined however to act in the interests of CAFC fans and if that involves criticism which it may it must be properly researched and professionally argued, and with respect to our football club not necessarily its owners or personnel.
We don't have lounge passes by the way, except by specific invitation. For example this Saturday which I think is the 3rd or 4th time I have ever been in there (and one of those was when I won Valley Gold) coincidentally we are meeting Valley Gold this time too.
Its frustrating because I would like to be able to meet with the SMT more often than we do in order to build that relationship and set expectations with regard to where disagree, however the club are not keen to grant that. The only obligation we have to CAFC is that they allow us some match days stalls on a math by match basis, this has proved vital in our growth, but even that is not going to deter us from being critical when needed.
We have been critical about derby policing, about communication, and pointed out that FFP is not an excuse for the level of funding. We will shortly comment further on this in part 2. ACV was not popular either i can tell you however we advised the club that this would happen at most grounds and because we did not want to affect a sale we waited before applying a few weeks. I also wrote a piece on here called This is a Battle for the Valley.
Like I said I don't think its easy, and a judgement call is often needed as to how to balance things, we are however as mentioned conducting a feedback survey so you can tell us exactly how you feel.
What I am interested in currently, is what is the average level if investment this year in the championship. Last year we are told was average, so how does this year match up. If we establish that we can have the basis for an argument over strategy, I think that is key along with other factors.
IMO this season many of the bigger Champs clubs are still living way beyond their means, and will get hit hard next season if they're not promoted.
With some of these clubs crippled with fines and transfer embargoes, and Charlton already streamlined to conform to FFP requirements - maybe this is the time the club has earmarked for the big push?
Maybe Airman is wrong and there IS a plan ?
Maybe he isn't. After all, what kind of plan would it be that envisages spending £16m (the club's figures in their own sales document) to tread water for two years, risk relegation wiping out your ultimate chances of success anyway, and then bet the club on breaking through in one season regardless of FFP.
People keep looking for a rationale because they don't have enough pieces of the jigsaw and want to believe there is a pattern that will explain everything if only they can find it. There isn't. The club will be sold, and only then will we find out what's coming next.
have to say I agree with this sentiment, why would you buy a club then put it up for sale so quickly
There are a handful of key assets that we need to sign up for longer contracts (e.g Wiggins, Yann, Hamer), but most of the other players are of the sort who will in the modern football world have to cope with short contracts, e.g. the likes of Dervite and Wood. If after this year they sign on for another year, then great. If they don't, well we can probably find someone of a similar level also on a free.
I agree although I would add Powell, Dyer and Matthew to the assets. Morrison and Stephens also while Wood is becoming a key part of the team. But that does rather prove your point as we got him on a free and could either re-sign him or find a similar replacement.
What I am interested in currently, is what is the average level if investment this year in the championship. Last year we are told was average, so how does this year match up. If we establish that we can have the basis for an argument over strategy, I think that is key along with other factors.
Over the next few months Championship clubs will file accounts for last season and it will be relatively simple to forecast this season based on the ins and outs over the summer.
Re the sale of CAFC so soon after getting back to the Championship and no investment to get to playoffs??? Perhaps need to research what it might cost to climb up to top six and then ask the club... I really dont get it because the club has to worth a lot more sitting 6th from top and not bottom.
I think those being critical of the Trust need to take a step back and remember that it is still less than a year old and the Committee are learning on the job.
I speak only as someone who has paid his £5 and bought a tee shirt a few weeks back so have no particular axe to grind one way or the other.
As a mere member it seems sensible to me for the Trust to foster as many channels of communication as possible until and even beyond the time that the longterm aims become clear.
I read a statistic from the last Trust survey that 28% of fans get their information about Charlton from Charlton Life so it makes sense to me to debate issues here as it is an outlet for opinion to be expressed.
Another poster made a snide comment higher up the thread about Trust committee members disagreeing with each other. At this stage of the process I see that as a strength rather than a weakness. It shows that we have a committee prepared to encompass a broad spread of views which is essential if the Trust is to be truly representative of the fanbase as a whole as time goes on.
I for one would like to thank Barney, Craig, Kevin, Ken, Seth and the others I've not knowingly met for all the work that they have done in getting the Trust up and running.
In less than a year they have made tremendous strides and I reckon few if any of us, including those presently making snide comments, would have done any better.
Another poster made a snide comment higher up the thread about Trust committee members disagreeing with each other. .
Why not be honest and say which poster?
It would indeed have been healthy if the Trust board members were disagreeing but they weren't. SR decided that any criticism of the board's signing policy was "panic and hysteria" and that those that didn't see it that way needed to "grow some". Only he though it was me who said it but it wasn't it was Razil.
Barnie/Razil is now making a valiant attempt to get the worms back in the tin.
I am getting a bit concerned about the role of the Supporters Trust. I am also a member but I didn't expect the Trust to be used by Prothoro and the owners as a sort of PR Company. That to me is not the role of the Trust. I am thinking very strongly of withdrawing from the Trust as I don't believe the way they are going is the right way. The Trust has become a lap dog for Prothoro and the owners.
Hi Dick
I am sorry to read your post here. As far as I know, we don't know each other, but I always find your posts make a lot of sense. I can only say that if I thought the Trust was anywhere near what you've described above, I wouldn't have anything to do with it either. It isn't. And I am not the only one on the Board or within the active group who would think that way. You'd be welcome to join that group, and put your view forward. Of course by now you also have the questionnaire from the Trust where you can actually register your view of us as a "lapdog" - so at least you can see that they are trying to listen to everybody. But your personal views and perceptions would be more than welcome. Send me a PM if you prefer.
I think its important to clarify certain things at certain times. If people don't appreciate what we do, I respect that and will always listen. I (hopefully) won't get into what seem to often be very personal debates and point scoring though on here.
I think this whole end to a good thread is a bit of a wake up call as the messages that get issued from the trust and don't contradict or show a disagreement of issues publically
Many thanks NLA... It was/is a good thread and I think we have found common ground in that we all want to know what is happening about the players who are showing the best form, i.e., Stephens, Hamer etc... And of course the squad management. And that is what the Trust discussed last night - how and when to ask key questions...
It only ends in tears if we let it...if we can't move forwards or if we try to run it from a message board.
As a group the Trust needs to decide what the second year is all about starting with the Back to the Valley dinner which incidentally the Trust has agreed to co-promote... for it celebrates both the past and the future of the club.
There will always be people who wont participate and those who criticise...but the beauty of the surveys is that we can see what the 80% in the middle think-
And they want Chris Powell awarded a new deal plus new investment to take the club on... and these results were communicated to the club management team several months back.
Some will leave the Trust but right now it is gaining 3-500 new email contacts per month thanks to volunteers on the stall and 75 new members each and every month.
That means that by the end of the season it will be linked to a good proportion of the fan base without having to have witnessed a fire
I am getting a bit concerned about the role of the Supporters Trust. I am also a member but I didn't expect the Trust to be used by Prothoro and the owners as a sort of PR Company. That to me is not the role of the Trust. I am thinking very strongly of withdrawing from the Trust as I don't believe the way they are going is the right way. The Trust has become a lap dog for Prothoro and the owners.
Hi Dick
I am sorry to read your post here. As far as I know, we don't know each other, but I always find your posts make a lot of sense. I can only say that if I thought the Trust was anywhere near what you've described above, I wouldn't have anything to do with it either. It isn't. And I am not the only one on the Board or within the active group who would think that way. You'd be welcome to join that group, and put your view forward. Of course by now you also have the questionnaire from the Trust where you can actually register your view of us as a "lapdog" - so at least you can see that they are trying to listen to everybody. But your personal views and perceptions would be more than welcome. Send me a PM if you prefer.
Thanks for your reply Prague, you and Seriously red have done a lot to quell my fears about the Supporters Trust. I apologise for my use of lapdog, on reflection that expression is a bit OTT. It would be great if more people could join the Trust because that would give us,the Supporters, more teeth. I didn't want the Trust turning into just a mouthpiece for the Owners of the Club. I wanted it to retain the ability to go against the Club if that time ever came.I would also like to thank all the people on the Trust who give their time on behalf of us, it is much appreciated.
Most Trust members (the current survey tells us) want us to be a critical friend of the club, so the Trust board is constantly making judgements about when to be critical, how critical to be, and whether it is helpful to be publically critical.
It is about balance. I don't think it is a good idea, every time we have a "frank exchange of views" with the club (which we do), to shout it from the rooftops. On the other hand, I accept that members want to see some evidence of the Trust challenging the club when appropriate.
Comments
That doesn't stop other board members and our members getting into debates on here. Its a balance of course between wanting debate and comments, and of course people confusing opinions with policy.
If anyone members or not doesn't like what the trust is doing feel free to inbox me direct, we have also just embarked on a feedback survey so fans can tell us how they think we should deal with the club. Just like the fan base generally the trust is a broad church and I am not inclined to tell anyone they can't voice their opinions on a message board.
Our approach until now has been one of a critical friend, where we agree we try and work together, where we disagree we say so but we manage that, by which I mean we give them a chance to respond before going live with anything. I expect we cannot please everyone all the time, but I can tell you we are no apologists for anyone. Interestingly we discussed this at last nights meeting (anyone can come along to these you would be more than welcome).
I would ask people to be patient particularly over coming weeks, and for those who want to contribute and help with analysis and criticism when due to email/inbox me so we can take that on board, if not invite you on to the board. I have made numerous attempt to engage with the more vociferous people on here to bring them into the trust as contributors. If anyone feels we have been too lenient or too critical etc again please inbox me and or come to meetings.
I would also suggest all members read our aims and objectives and rules, this lays out our positive approach to the relationship. We are determined however to act in the interests of CAFC fans and if that involves criticism which it may it must be properly researched and professionally argued, and with respect to our football club not necessarily its owners or personnel.
We don't have lounge passes by the way, except by specific invitation. For example this Saturday which I think is the 3rd or 4th time I have ever been in there (and one of those was when I won Valley Gold) coincidentally we are meeting Valley Gold this time too.
Its frustrating because I would like to be able to meet with the SMT more often than we do in order to build that relationship and set expectations with regard to where disagree, however the club are not keen to grant that. The only obligation we have to CAFC is that they allow us some match days stalls on a math by match basis, this has proved vital in our growth, but even that is not going to deter us from being critical when needed.
We have been critical about derby policing, about communication, and pointed out that FFP is not an excuse for the level of funding. We will shortly comment further on this in part 2. ACV was not popular either i can tell you however we advised the club that this would happen at most grounds and because we did not want to affect a sale we waited before applying a few weeks. I also wrote a piece on here called This is a Battle for the Valley.
Like I said I don't think its easy, and a judgement call is often needed as to how to balance things, we are however as mentioned conducting a feedback survey so you can tell us exactly how you feel.
BR
Over the next few months Championship clubs will file accounts for last season and it will be relatively simple to forecast this season based on the ins and outs over the summer.
Re the sale of CAFC so soon after getting back to the Championship and no investment to get to playoffs??? Perhaps need to research what it might cost to climb up to top six and then ask the club... I really dont get it because the club has to worth a lot more sitting 6th from top and not bottom.
I speak only as someone who has paid his £5 and bought a tee shirt a few weeks back so have no particular axe to grind one way or the other.
As a mere member it seems sensible to me for the Trust to foster as many channels of communication as possible until and even beyond the time that the longterm aims become clear.
I read a statistic from the last Trust survey that 28% of fans get their information about Charlton from Charlton Life so it makes sense to me to debate issues here as it is an outlet for opinion to be expressed.
Another poster made a snide comment higher up the thread about Trust committee members disagreeing with each other. At this stage of the process I see that as a strength rather than a weakness. It shows that we have a committee prepared to encompass a broad spread of views which is essential if the Trust is to be truly representative of the fanbase as a whole as time goes on.
I for one would like to thank Barney, Craig, Kevin, Ken, Seth and the others I've not knowingly met for all the work that they have done in getting the Trust up and running.
In less than a year they have made tremendous strides and I reckon few if any of us, including those presently making snide comments, would have done any better.
It would indeed have been healthy if the Trust board members were disagreeing but they weren't. SR decided that any criticism of the board's signing policy was "panic and hysteria" and that those that didn't see it that way needed to "grow some". Only he though it was me who said it but it wasn't it was Razil.
Barnie/Razil is now making a valiant attempt to get the worms back in the tin.
I am sorry to read your post here. As far as I know, we don't know each other, but I always find your posts make a lot of sense. I can only say that if I thought the Trust was anywhere near what you've described above, I wouldn't have anything to do with it either. It isn't. And I am not the only one on the Board or within the active group who would think that way. You'd be welcome to join that group, and put your view forward. Of course by now you also have the questionnaire from the Trust where you can actually register your view of us as a "lapdog" - so at least you can see that they are trying to listen to everybody. But your personal views and perceptions would be more than welcome. Send me a PM if you prefer.
it just ends in tears
And of course the squad management.
And that is what the Trust discussed last night - how and when to ask key questions...
It only ends in tears if we let it...if we can't move forwards or if we try to run it from a message board.
As a group the Trust needs to decide what the second year is all about starting with the Back to the Valley dinner which incidentally the Trust has agreed to co-promote... for it celebrates both the past and the future of the club.
There will always be people who wont participate and those who criticise...but the beauty of the surveys is that we can see what the 80% in the middle think-
And they want Chris Powell awarded a new deal plus new investment to take the club on... and these results were communicated to the club management team several months back.
Some will leave the Trust but right now it is gaining 3-500 new email contacts per month thanks to volunteers on the stall and 75 new members each and every month.
That means that by the end of the season it will be linked to a good proportion of the fan base without having to have witnessed a fire
It is about balance. I don't think it is a good idea, every time we have a "frank exchange of views" with the club (which we do), to shout it from the rooftops. On the other hand, I accept that members want to see some evidence of the Trust challenging the club when appropriate.
We're trying to get it right !