Getting ready for the abuse that will follow this no doubt...
I'm struggling to understand why a trust representing the fans - who pay for membership - would arrange a meeting with a member of the board, and agree not to fully disclose the content of the meeting.
Surely when only 50 of the 1000 odd members are present, you are neglecting 95% of your membership base?
I get why you can't post it here, or on a public domain, but surely it should be in made available to those members who request it.
No disrepect intended for the hardwork you've done to get this off the ground, but you are representing your members, not Richard Murray.
And that sums up why I have had second thoughts about the validity and worth of a Supporters Trust. It has become a bit too cosy and why I won't be renewing my subscription.
Getting ready for the abuse that will follow this no doubt...
I'm struggling to understand why a trust representing the fans - who pay for membership - would arrange a meeting with a member of the board, and agree not to fully disclose the content of the meeting.
Surely when only 50 of the 1000 odd members are present, you are neglecting 95% of your membership base?
I get why you can't post it here, or on a public domain, but surely it should be in made available to those members who request it.
No disrepect intended for the hardwork you've done to get this off the ground, but you are representing your members, not Richard Murray.
And that sums up why I have had second thoughts about the validity and worth of a Supporters Trust. It has become a bit too cosy and why I won't be renewing my subscription.
Nonsense.
Firstly if the guest asks for discretion then whoever is hosting should afford them that courtesy at the very least. It wasn't an AGM that requires a quorum ffs.
Secondly, the meeting was documented and published to the Trust membership. Leaving aside the fact that it is very common for certain sensitive things discussed at meetings to be left out of minutes, there's a fair amount of information that is available.
Finally, if you're not there it will always be second hand and always be a summary. That inevitably means it's incomplete, as any minutes are, as any football match report is, etc.
From this Trust member's perspective, who was unable to be there, thank you to the Trust for organising the event and reporting it to the wider membership. I acknowledge there are things RM would prefer not to be broadcast, and recognise there's more importance long term in developing his trust than the short term pleasure members would get from a snippet that exposes him.
An excellent evening and well done to Barnie and his colleagues in the Trust for arranging it all. Hopefully what has been achieved thus far will encourage others to sign up because they most certainly deserve our support. I'm sure it is easy to under-estimate just how much work they have put in to create and establish the Trust.
Richard Murray really is a first class raconteur and I place a lot of trust in what he has to say. Having heard it first hand, I am a little more comfortable in terms of the future, although we all know we are up against it this season in terms of avoiding the drop.
It is also interesting and good to hear that RD and KM are going to attend a press conference shortly. We all know from our experience of the Jiminez regime that, once owners close off channels of communication, it breeds a climate of mistrust and anxious supporters unsurprisingly tend to put a negative construction on events and owners' motives.
Getting ready for the abuse that will follow this no doubt...
I'm struggling to understand why a trust representing the fans - who pay for membership - would arrange a meeting with a member of the board, and agree not to fully disclose the content of the meeting.
Surely when only 50 of the 1000 odd members are present, you are neglecting 95% of your membership base?
I get why you can't post it here, or on a public domain, but surely it should be in made available to those members who request it.
No disrepect intended for the hardwork you've done to get this off the ground, but you are representing your members, not Richard Murray.
I do agree with this as a principle, but on the other hand understand why RM asks for some discretion over what he says. In the end, as the main speaker, he sets those rules rather than the Trust, and it would be difficult for the Trust to invite him only subject to agreement that the meeting would be reported verbatim. The summary on the website gives a good flavour of the discussion - thanks to those who organised from a supporter far, far away!
Getting ready for the abuse that will follow this no doubt...
I'm struggling to understand why a trust representing the fans - who pay for membership - would arrange a meeting with a member of the board, and agree not to fully disclose the content of the meeting.
Surely when only 50 of the 1000 odd members are present, you are neglecting 95% of your membership base?
I get why you can't post it here, or on a public domain, but surely it should be in made available to those members who request it.
No disrepect intended for the hardwork you've done to get this off the ground, but you are representing your members, not Richard Murray.
And that sums up why I have had second thoughts about the validity and worth of a Supporters Trust. It has become a bit too cosy and why I won't be renewing my subscription.
If you don't wish to renew that is your choice but please don't use this as a reason. I was there and the write up on the trust site covers everything important that was said. As said above, whilst Murray is an honest and open speaker he certainly isn't going to go into the minutiae in a room full of unknown people. Given his comments about two sets of legal papers (no further information was asked or given) after the Bromley meeting it is not surprising and very sensible the way this has been done.
The Trust put on a great evening open to ALL fans - not just members - and should be applauded not criticised. Of course not everyone is able to attend but that is not a reason not to hold an event like this.
Maybe I am gullible but If the likes of Murray and White, two we'll known, prominent and informed CAFC fans think the Trust is a good idea then that is good enough for me.
Maybe a live feed from the next one charging supporters trust members a pound to cover costs would be an idea , prolly not practical cos you're all outta your nuts :-)
what I love about CL and possibly human nature is that if you get enough people in a room you will eventually get an opposing view, then if you wait a bit longer someone will wade in and answer it for you.. and so on
I should also add that Charlton fans are significantly easier to please than my missus (leave it..) so I am it seems in that way (alone) amply experienced to do this job.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with letting a couple of titbits out to a few supporters that shouldn't be shared further - good sense in that.
What I find a little grating are the 'we will know/already know something you don't noises', it just serves to annoy - the best way of keeping it quiet and stopping speculation is not to mention that there were any 'secrets' in the first place.
Having said that, I am grateful to the Trust for holding the meeting and publicising the comments that could be aired.
Getting ready for the abuse that will follow this no doubt...
I'm struggling to understand why a trust representing the fans - who pay for membership - would arrange a meeting with a member of the board, and agree not to fully disclose the content of the meeting.
Surely when only 50 of the 1000 odd members are present, you are neglecting 95% of your membership base?
I get why you can't post it here, or on a public domain, but surely it should be in made available to those members who request it.
No disrepect intended for the hardwork you've done to get this off the ground, but you are representing your members, not Richard Murray.
And that sums up why I have had second thoughts about the validity and worth of a Supporters Trust. It has become a bit too cosy and why I won't be renewing my subscription.
I do have to agree with dickplumb. If a meeting is advertised to all & sundry, but only 5% can turn up, why should the other 95% be not allowed to hear what was said purely because they were unable to get to the venue. I'm aware that various meeting are held around the s/e , but there are many supporters who live further away or work shifts and are unable to attend.
I've attended a few of these meetings but no longer go because I feel that if I hear something of importance then my fellow fans should also know, and I hate having to sit on my hands (literally) and not come on here the next day to post certain tidbits.......
Actually the meeting was open to all charlton fans, free to members, fiver to non members - with optional free membership on the night. So it wasn't exclusive to members in any shape or form.
Also if we didnt mention the terms of the meeting we would be accused of hiding something.
There's lots I agree with dick on especially with regards to some of his views on the trust but this time I disagree
The way life works is everyone wants everything and they want it now
The trust has much to do and much to learn but they have done something that was available to all
If you couldn't go then it really is tough titty and take what your told via other medium and vehicles and either get to the next one your self or get more annoyed that you feel left out
Not renewing because you want to hear chapter and verse of a meeting you were invited to but couldn't attend for your own reasons is not a valid reason imo
Even though I do not go to these meetings I am glad that they take place as I do find out things that I would not know if they did not take place. I am a member of the trust, but do not think a fiver means that someone that organises a meeting is obliged to spend more of their own time explaining everything that was said in a meeting. I would also add that it is usual for minutes of a meeting to be agreed before they are sent out as frequently a short summary can easily give the wrong idea when the context is missing. The same applies to quotes in a note. I do not blame RM not wanting direct quotes. The report we got is better than most minutes.
Not forgetting we asked for questions weeks in advance, and asked then during the event. Only had about six emails on that.
We insisted on publishing the summary in order that fans did take part
We run numerous surveys, including a comprehensive feedback survey to our members and others, a matchday stall, we even webcast our agm or tried to, only four attempted to logon.
To say we aren't representing our members is just not supported by the facts, nor would we get q and as of this type in the current environment on any other basis.
Thanks to all at the Trust. I can see that it's difficult, RM has a habit of saying ssshhh, don't tell anyone this but......................... Obviously I, and I suspect all trust members, would prefer total transparency, but it's RM who has set the agenda, not The Trust, so I will continue to renew, provided of course that they tell me on the QT ;-)
They didn't involve me, but bear in mind the club was sending numerous "legal letters" to former directors and staff in 2012/13. I doubt if Richard would like them published and it's hardly surprising if he received one or more in response when he chose to make comments about ongoing proceedings in a public forum, considering the people on the receiving end had kept their counsel in the face of intense provocation.
They didn't involve me, but bear in mind the club was sending numerous "legal letters" to former directors and staff in 2012/13. I doubt if Richard would like them published and it's hardly surprising if he received one or more in response when he chose to make comments about ongoing proceedings in a public forum considering the people on the receiving end had kept their counsel in the face of intense provocation.
Which is more than slightly ingenuous of you as the issues that caused the legal letters were raised by you on here and by Wendy Perfect at the meeting.
Personally I couldn't see the problem as RM was confirming something the pro-TJ and MS people had tried to deny. The confirmation was, if anything, of benefit to PV and SK IMO.
Old news now but Just goes to show Bromley is where it all happens. See you all on 7 May. ; - )
They didn't involve me, but bear in mind the club was sending numerous "legal letters" to former directors and staff in 2012/13. I doubt if Richard would like them published and it's hardly surprising if he received one or more in response when he chose to make comments about ongoing proceedings in a public forum considering the people on the receiving end had kept their counsel in the face of intense provocation.
Which is more than slightly ingenuous of you as the issues that caused the legal letters were raised by you on here and by Wendy Perfect at the meeting.
Personally I couldn't see the problem as RM was confirming something the pro-TJ and MS people had tried to deny. The confirmation was, if anything, of benefit to PV and SK IMO.
Old news now but Just goes to show Bromley is where it all happens. See you all on 7 May. ; - )
What I meant was that I didn't send a "legal letter". It's going to do RM no favours to keep dredging this up.
It is also not true that these issues were raised by Wendy at the meeting. She responded to a false statement about Steve Kavanagh.
perhaps it should have been billed as City Addicks so avouding a lot of this stuff.
Agree, I am a member or the trust, but have no great affinity with it, but the stuff on here is daft. Guests at Charlton fans forums have often been asked to keep certain things in the room. So for those that are so unhappy that a few bits they have not heard, how would you feel if guests like Murray did not attend because they were told nothing stays in the room.
They didn't involve me, but bear in mind the club was sending numerous "legal letters" to former directors and staff in 2012/13. I doubt if Richard would like them published and it's hardly surprising if he received one or more in response when he chose to make comments about ongoing proceedings in a public forum considering the people on the receiving end had kept their counsel in the face of intense provocation.
Which is more than slightly ingenuous of you as the issues that caused the legal letters were raised by you on here and by Wendy Perfect at the meeting.
Personally I couldn't see the problem as RM was confirming something the pro-TJ and MS people had tried to deny. The confirmation was, if anything, of benefit to PV and SK IMO.
Old news now but Just goes to show Bromley is where it all happens. See you all on 7 May. ; - )
What I meant was that I didn't send a "legal letter". It's going to do RM no favours to keep dredging this up.
After reading that VOTV 47, Ackworth and you two bickering are about the only things that haven't changed.
A big thank you to Razil in the chair warming up the meeting with a few questions before the audience kicked in... and for Pico who didn't just write it up double quick but also got a final version onto our website with photos in time for our weekly email that goes out every Friday at noon. There were some good questions asked and we will see how much happens on the pitch and with loans to substantiate the message. And see what RD says next week. There will always be fans leaving the trust for a variety of reasons or simply not getting round to renewing. If no one left I'd be worried because that would mean we weren't pushing hard enough, not making mistakes as we learn how to grow the Trust. As Razil stated we did a feedback survey before Christmas to ensure we listened to members...most said carry on but be a bit louder, more public so there has been a shift. At the same time fans are defending the Trust and we have another 75 members joining each and every month. The Richard Murray meeting is just one of a number of things going on. This type of activity helps but we will also continue to write / source articles on the owner and the emerging strategy...And continue with the surveys which tell us more about the fans views and give them the chance to give us their email addresses if they wish to be kept informed. And one more thing...we appear to be gaining more fan volunteers now to help out on match days. Last May the club pushed out 4,000 Trust News with the programme. Last Saturday we gave out and posted 4,000 copies ourselves. We have a few other ideas for what's next but it would be great if posters on here emailed or in boxed thoughts.
Comments
Firstly if the guest asks for discretion then whoever is hosting should afford them that courtesy at the very least. It wasn't an AGM that requires a quorum ffs.
Secondly, the meeting was documented and published to the Trust membership. Leaving aside the fact that it is very common for certain sensitive things discussed at meetings to be left out of minutes, there's a fair amount of information that is available.
Finally, if you're not there it will always be second hand and always be a summary. That inevitably means it's incomplete, as any minutes are, as any football match report is, etc.
From this Trust member's perspective, who was unable to be there, thank you to the Trust for organising the event and reporting it to the wider membership. I acknowledge there are things RM would prefer not to be broadcast, and recognise there's more importance long term in developing his trust than the short term pleasure members would get from a snippet that exposes him.
Richard Murray really is a first class raconteur and I place a lot of trust in what he has to say. Having heard it first hand, I am a little more comfortable in terms of the future, although we all know we are up against it this season in terms of avoiding the drop.
It is also interesting and good to hear that RD and KM are going to attend a press conference shortly. We all know from our experience of the Jiminez regime that, once owners close off channels of communication, it breeds a climate of mistrust and anxious supporters unsurprisingly tend to put a negative construction on events and owners' motives.
The Trust put on a great evening open to ALL fans - not just members - and should be applauded not criticised. Of course not everyone is able to attend but that is not a reason not to hold an event like this.
Maybe I am gullible but If the likes of Murray and White, two we'll known, prominent and informed CAFC fans think the Trust is a good idea then that is good enough for me.
I should also add that Charlton fans are significantly easier to please than my missus (leave it..) so I am it seems in that way (alone) amply experienced to do this job.
Altogether now, we're gonna beat the Shefs..
What I find a little grating are the 'we will know/already know something you don't noises', it just serves to annoy - the best way of keeping it quiet and stopping speculation is not to mention that there were any 'secrets' in the first place.
Having said that, I am grateful to the Trust for holding the meeting and publicising the comments that could be aired.
I've attended a few of these meetings but no longer go because I feel that if I hear something of importance then my fellow fans should also know, and I hate having to sit on my hands (literally) and not come on here the next day to post certain tidbits.......
Also if we didnt mention the terms of the meeting we would be accused of hiding something.
The way life works is everyone wants everything and they want it now
The trust has much to do and much to learn but they have done something that was available to all
If you couldn't go then it really is tough titty and take what your told via other medium and vehicles and either get to the next one your self or get more annoyed that you feel left out
Not renewing because you want to hear chapter and verse of a meeting you were invited to but couldn't attend for your own reasons is not a valid reason imo
I am a member of the trust, but do not think a fiver means that someone that organises a meeting is obliged to spend more of their own time explaining everything that was said in a meeting.
I would also add that it is usual for minutes of a meeting to be agreed before they are sent out as frequently a short summary can easily give the wrong idea when the context is missing. The same applies to quotes in a note. I do not blame RM not wanting direct quotes. The report we got is better than most minutes.
We insisted on publishing the summary in order that fans did take part
We run numerous surveys, including a comprehensive feedback survey to our members and others, a matchday stall, we even webcast our agm or tried to, only four attempted to logon.
To say we aren't representing our members is just not supported by the facts, nor would we get q and as of this type in the current environment on any other basis.
ALL the information emparted is given in the report. There are no secrets.
As for the few people on this thread winging, shame on you.
The level of "What about me?" Syndrome in this country is simply appalling.
It's not all about you, and the sooner people wise up to that the better.
Personally I couldn't see the problem as RM was confirming something the pro-TJ and MS people had tried to deny. The confirmation was, if anything, of benefit to PV and SK IMO.
Old news now but Just goes to show Bromley is where it all happens. See you all on 7 May. ; - )
It is also not true that these issues were raised by Wendy at the meeting. She responded to a false statement about Steve Kavanagh.
:-)
There were some good questions asked and we will see how much happens on the pitch and with loans to substantiate the message. And see what RD says next week.
There will always be fans leaving the trust for a variety of reasons or simply not getting round to renewing. If no one left I'd be worried because that would mean we weren't pushing hard enough, not making mistakes as we learn how to grow the Trust. As Razil stated we did a feedback survey before Christmas to ensure we listened to members...most said carry on but be a bit louder, more public so there has been a shift.
At the same time fans are defending the Trust and we have another 75 members joining each and every month.
The Richard Murray meeting is just one of a number of things going on. This type of activity helps but we will also continue to write / source articles on the owner and the emerging strategy...And continue with the surveys which tell us more about the fans views and give them the chance to give us their email addresses if they wish to be kept informed.
And one more thing...we appear to be gaining more fan volunteers now to help out on match days.
Last May the club pushed out 4,000 Trust News with the programme. Last Saturday we gave out and posted 4,000 copies ourselves.
We have a few other ideas for what's next but it would be great if posters on here emailed or in boxed thoughts.