These lot appear more interested in separating themselves as some new élite who are somehow 'better' supporters than the rest of us and the trust. They should be part of a united front from supporters, rather than trying to get their names somewhere and self-aggrandisement.
Have to say, I find Airman Brown's responses pretty unsatisfactory so far. Still no compelling argument as to why these approaches, at this stage, need to come from a group independent from the Trust.
Airman seems very sure of the credibility of the people in this Supporters Group, and should be, yet then suggests we'd be unhappy if they joined the trust. IMHO, that's cobblers - having committed Charlton Fans with the CV's like some of this group's members would strengthen the Trust and also give the members of this group a proper mandate to represent the whole of the fan base. The only way this group joining the trust would be viewed negatively is if it immediately set about an internal coup as soon as its membership cheques had been cashed.
This comes across to me as a group that doesn't want the hassle of representing the broad range of CAFC fans, rather it wants to represent the views of its members and is already geared up for a fight which says to me it is pre judging the response it expects from RD.
Open discussions require an open mind and I'm not convinced from what's been said so far that Airman Brown's Boys have that.
These lot appear more interested in separating themselves as some new élite who are somehow 'better' supporters than the rest of us and the trust. They should be part of a united front from supporters, rather than trying to get their names somewhere and self-aggrandisement.
Seeing as how you're speculating and all that, could you speculate as to why would the new group be seeking elite status, or after self-aggrandisement, and see themselves as somehow 'better'?
Some very good names in that group of people with the will to act as one. Much experience with council battles ,dealings with directors ,planing services,and police.Not forgeting dealings with fans.Good work you guys and girls you can count on ,my support.
These lot appear more interested in separating themselves as some new élite who are somehow 'better' supporters than the rest of us and the trust. They should be part of a united front from supporters, rather than trying to get their names somewhere and self-aggrandisement.
Seeing as how you're speculating and all that, could you speculate as to why would the new group be seeking elite status, or after self-aggrandisement, and see themselves as somehow 'better'?
They are acting apart from the Trust, the organisation that some of the member are key actors within. The aims of this 'new' group are almost indistinguishable from the already established supporters trust, so there seems to be little need of them.
These lot appear more interested in separating themselves as some new élite who are somehow 'better' supporters than the rest of us and the trust. They should be part of a united front from supporters, rather than trying to get their names somewhere and self-aggrandisement.
Seeing as how you're speculating and all that, could you speculate as to why would the new group be seeking elite status, or after self-aggrandisement, and see themselves as somehow 'better'?
They are acting apart from the Trust, the organisation that some of the member are key actors within. The aims of this 'new' group are almost indistinguishable from the already established supporters trust, so there seems to be little need of them.
1,YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK YOUSELF. 2 NOT AROUND IN 1985 / 1990 I THINK.
1,YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK YOUSELF. 2 NOT AROUND IN 1985 / 1990 I THINK.
I was certainly around in 1985-90 and would absolutely agree that many members of this group were pivotal in getting us back to The Valley. They were up against an elected body that democratically could be and were successfully challenged. They will always have my immense respect.
Trouble is that the 'target' (and that's the right word as clearly the statement indicates action if he doesn't play ball) now is a private individual who owns the club, lock, stock and barrel - not a target that can be challenged in anywhere near the same way. Do you really think it's the same?
Dialogue is required - not the issuing of threats/challenge.
I'll say what a lot of people are thinking. This is Airman and his lefty cronies, living out their fantasy as activists. All they will do is undermine the trust and take away all its credibility. As plenty of people have said, why cannot these questions be put by the trust? In any event, I cannot see RD batting an eyelid at these ministers without portfolio and it ultimately may give the trust the opportunity to flex their muscles if they decide to take the Charlton Popular Front on.
I'll say what a lot of people are thinking. This is Airman and his lefty cronies, living out their fantasy as activists. All they will do is undermine the trust and take away all its credibility. As plenty of people have said, why cannot these questions be put by the trust? In any event, I cannot see RD batting an eyelid at these ministers without portfolio and it ultimately may give the trust the opportunity to flex their muscles if they decide to take the Charlton Popular Front on.
I'll say what a lot of people are thinking. This is Airman and his lefty cronies, living out their fantasy as activists. All they will do is undermine the trust and take away all its credibility. As plenty of people have said, why cannot these questions be put by the trust? In any event, I cannot see RD batting an eyelid at these ministers without portfolio and it ultimately may give the trust the opportunity to flex their muscles if they decide to take the Charlton Popular Front on.
If I am a reluctant Chair I'd hate to know how many hours I have to put in if I was 'un-reluctant', lol.
Honestly folks I am pretty relaxed about this and don't feel threatened or undermined. I am confident that we have campaigned for more dialogue (including on BBC london radio) and will continue to do so.
I think perhaps it was a bit of a rush and more time will be required to get this right, and perhaps some clarification needed.
The trust board is relatively small very hardworking group, and we continue to grow our membership above 1000 particularly lately which has surprised me. As well as that we have a good number of achievements under our belt and I feel we can be self assured and relatively confident, and i can assure you we aren't going anywhere and certainly not because of this group after all they invited us along to the meeting. And also not forgetting many of these people are members and came to our launch.
At the same time we must remain humble and open to the wider fan base, if anything I think we've lacked more input from those quarters and our agm being on a matchday is something I think we won't repeat.
Perhaps this is an opportunity to improve that area, and maybe add some to the board, or maybe some kind of consultation group, again I have no problem with that in fact I think we could do with a couple of new faces on the board. Also awareness of the trust has grown massively even since the Autumn.
I get why some people feel this should have been done differently but I think we can work with whatever situation to achieve a positive outcome.
I'll say what a lot of people are thinking. This is Airman and his lefty cronies, living out their fantasy as activists. All they will do is undermine the trust and take away all its credibility. As plenty of people have said, why cannot these questions be put by the trust? In any event, I cannot see RD batting an eyelid at these ministers without portfolio and it ultimately may give the trust the opportunity to flex their muscles if they decide to take the Charlton Popular Front on.
Whatever RD's take on this move is, you are well wide of the mark when you claim that everyone on that list are 'lefty cronies' of Airman. You clearly don't know them or their political views, which are quite frankly irrelevant to the current debate IMHO.
I'll say what a lot of people are thinking. This is Airman and his lefty cronies, living out their fantasy as activists. All they will do is undermine the trust and take away all its credibility. As plenty of people have said, why cannot these questions be put by the trust? In any event, I cannot see RD batting an eyelid at these ministers without portfolio and it ultimately may give the trust the opportunity to flex their muscles if they decide to take the Charlton Popular Front on.
Whatever RD's take on this move is, you are well wide of the mark when you claim that everyone on that list are 'lefty cronies' of Airman. You clearly don't know them or their political views, which are quite frankly irrelevant to the current debate IMHO.
Fuck me telly tubby, that lot make Dennis Skinner look like Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson.
If I am a reluctant Chair I'd hate to know how many hours I have to put in if I was 'un-reluctant', lol.
Honestly folks I am pretty relaxed about this and don't feel threatened or undermined.
Sorry Barnie, but whatever you think, the actions of this 'super group' HAVE undermined CAST, not only by holding a by invitation only meeting, but by subsequently publicising their aims on this forum.
You must be extremely disappointed that two of your Board members have decided to put their names to the statement, yet neither of them have bothered to respond to any of the genuine concerns raised by several people on this thread.
I'll say what a lot of people are thinking. This is Airman and his lefty cronies, living out their fantasy as activists.
What a load of old rubbish. What has politics got to do with this group.
They're hardly a bunch of militant revolutionaries.
The meeting was called by supporters who started the valley party 1990. Airmans words, not mine. Of course there is a political edge to it, hence that emphasis to give it credibility.
i am with addickted Raz and I make no apologises for it, this group have actively undermined your efforts and the fact they have said they didn't feel your structure suited their aim and wouldn't allow them to do what they want is a load of nonsense and a veiled dig at the trust
you have the right to be disappointed in this Raz but your response is one I hoped for, remember when I said a chairman needs to not resort to bickering in public
I am waiting with interest to hear the answers to my questions as to why the trust could not have led this and why now
The reality is if this group had gone through the trust structure and the same names were attached, many people on here would now be saying that the group had taken control of the trust and the criticism would be just the same, the existing trust board has been undermined.
What you are really saying then is mind your own business, this is for the trust not you. But as Charlton supporters it is our business.
The group includes four former directors, as well as Kevin Nolan - someone who has reported virtually every match for the last 30 years. It is far too broad to sustain the criticism that it comprises people harbouring a grudge or on some kind of ego trip, which is exactly why it needed to be so broad. It may also be worth considering the extent of the personal connections these people have collectively across the club before dismissing their concern that something is wrong.
@Airman Brown, as you know I've been largely supportive of you over the years, but I think you've all simply got this one wrong. Your first paragraph is ludicrous - what was to stop an announcement that the Trust had convened a meeting of these individuals given the concerns expressed?
The Trust purports to give all fans a voice and represent their interest, specifically to preserve the long term future of the club and its identity. If we see a threat to the latter, the Trust is absolutely the body through which - and in whose name - any action should be taken. And absolutely the medium through which the wider fan base are alerted to the key issues involved.
In fact I'm a member of the Trust in order that I throw my weight behind response to any such threat. I've paid fees twice, but when the first issue of serious concern arises it's an entirely different group planning the way ahead.
So no, this group doesn't represent me - it can't, because we already have the Trust to do that on the objectives you guys have. Equally I don't understand the concerns - I can't understand the concerns because no-one has articulated or evidenced them. Some of what I'm hearing is certainly of concern, but I certainly don't want battle stations drawn in my name based on rumour.
My view is that this is divisive and that's evident across a number of Charlton media including this very thread. You should at the very least ensure the group is accountable to the Trust and working to the broader views of the supporter base - otherwise you're trying to secure a future that looks like a small group of like minded people want it to look. Frankly speaking, it would be hard to defend an accusation that it was self-serving and indulgent.
So this is all because chris got the sack and that was the straw that broke the camels back
To be fair I'm quite sure this is more about the reasons behind Chris getting the sack, so the catalyst is kind of unavoidable.
I'm happy to accept there is reason for concern - but mobilising the fan base won't be achieved by disenfranchising the membership of the Trust who thought they were buying into something this lot have ignored.
1,YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK YOUSELF. 2 NOT AROUND IN 1985 / 1990 I THINK.
I was certainly around in 1985-90 and would absolutely agree that many members of this group were pivotal in getting us back to The Valley. They were up against an elected body that democratically could be and were successfully challenged. They will always have my immense respect.
Trouble is that the 'target' (and that's the right word as clearly the statement indicates action if he doesn't play ball) now is a private individual who owns the club, lock, stock and barrel - not a target that can be challenged in anywhere near the same way. Do you really think it's the same?
Dialogue is required - not the issuing of threats/challenge.
Spot on Bob. And it's vital that the Trust prioritises developing that relationship over developing a war of attrition. There's a win-win to be had here.
If I am a reluctant Chair I'd hate to know how many hours I have to put in if I was 'un-reluctant', lol.
Honestly folks I am pretty relaxed about this and don't feel threatened or undermined.
Sorry Barnie, but whatever you think, the actions of this 'super group' HAVE undermined CAST, not only by holding a by invitation only meeting, but by subsequently publicising their aims on this forum.
You must be extremely disappointed that two of your Board members have decided to put their names to the statement, yet neither of them have bothered to respond to any of the genuine concerns raised by several people on this thread.
Barnie, it's great that you don't feel threatened or undermined but I fully agree with Addickted here. Being undermined isn't an emotion, nor is it exclusive to person sitting in the Trust chair. As a member of the Trust, I'm appalled - not so much by the aims and objectives, but by the fact this isn't the Trust organising it.
Whichever way you look at it, the message from this group is that they don't believe the Trust is capable of achieving their own objectives, which is insulting to you, your fellow officers and every single member.
Any way you look at it, and whatever is said to defend it, it is just plain wrong to have an alternative group seeking to clarify matters with RD.
Is it the Trust's fault for not being more vocal, more quickly?
Or is it the alternative group's fault for failing to support the Trust by going through that channel?
A bit of both, I feel. But it's not too late to put matters right. Raz and Airman, you'll have read the views on here - why not get your heads together to see how this can be pursued under the auspices of the Trust, but involving the signatories, whom I accept have a lot to offer.
And if not, please come back on here and tell us why not.
Would be grateful if a Group member could clarify the following: Has the Group got a structure i.e. Chairman, Secretary etc.? If so who was elected to the various roles? Was Wednesdays meeting minuted? If so a copy of said minutes would be welcomed. If you are invited to meet Roland or Katrien who will attend on behalf of the group? Who is going to put together the questions for the meeting and where will the input come from? Are all members of the Group on Charlton Life? How will the Group convince Roland or Katrien that they are representative of Charlton Supporters?
Having only read the first few posts and the last few posts, i have a few points.
Who cares how many groups are out there trying to get RD talking. If more try, more have a chance of succeeding.
Its good to see many names who have a history fighting for the club, and who know what it can take to achieve its aims.
Many people i am sure are knocking them for going up against the trust, but lets face it should they do well, we will get answers. If they don't, we don't loose anything. Yet those who's names are on that list stand to loose more should they make themselves unpopular, it is there choice, let them make it. For the average fan its like one of of these "no win no fee" companies, great for us.
Must be eh.? I told them they could if they liked and I wouldn't have a problem with it because I was there and spoke as much as others. It was short noticr and yes perhaps it should have been via a formal meeting but until you go to a meeting you can't know whats going to be said, but I think we should be listening to fans concerns however they are expressed.
Consider the alternative. If we were not consulted or invited and this statement was made without us having any involvement? Is that preferable? Would n't that undermine us more?
People are entitled to their opinions and I've given mine.
We will carry on as before, talk about this face to face on Monday and come back with a plan.
Well as one of the trust board members who was invited and whose name is on the list I am frankly a little confused as why you would think as the 'liason officer' I would not not attend a group of supporters at an initial meeting. Quite how do I listen to the ordinary supporter or as you call it 'Super group' without at least listening to what they propose?. I just regard myself as an ordinary supporter, nothing more nothing less. I certainly do not regard myself as in an 'elite group' of supporters and yes, I do know some of the people on that list. Personally, I do not have any particular political 'leanings' and I am more than happy to discuss with any fan there views on the trust. I am down at the Valley on the stall most home games, please come down and discuss with me in person if you would like!. I used to post on here quite a lot, but just bore people with my views on music these days! . But we are all entitled to a view/opinion.
Ken do you feel this could've been done in the name of the CAST and do you agree with AB that the structure of the trust doesn't allow this group to be represented in the way they want
and was there any indication given as to why the threat of RD is greater than TJ and MS look at the plans submitted for sparrows lane it seems we are very much in his order of importance
Comments
Airman seems very sure of the credibility of the people in this Supporters Group, and should be, yet then suggests we'd be unhappy if they joined the trust. IMHO, that's cobblers - having committed Charlton Fans with the CV's like some of this group's members would strengthen the Trust and also give the members of this group a proper mandate to represent the whole of the fan base. The only way this group joining the trust would be viewed negatively is if it immediately set about an internal coup as soon as its membership cheques had been cashed.
This comes across to me as a group that doesn't want the hassle of representing the broad range of CAFC fans, rather it wants to represent the views of its members and is already geared up for a fight which says to me it is pre judging the response it expects from RD.
Open discussions require an open mind and I'm not convinced from what's been said so far that Airman Brown's Boys have that.
Much experience with council battles ,dealings with directors ,planing services,and police.Not forgeting dealings with fans.Good work you guys and girls you can count on ,my support.
2 NOT AROUND IN 1985 / 1990 I THINK.
Trouble is that the 'target' (and that's the right word as clearly the statement indicates action if he doesn't play ball) now is a private individual who owns the club, lock, stock and barrel - not a target that can be challenged in anywhere near the same way. Do you really think it's the same?
Dialogue is required - not the issuing of threats/challenge.
Honestly folks I am pretty relaxed about this and don't feel threatened or undermined. I am confident that we have campaigned for more dialogue (including on BBC london radio) and will continue to do so.
I think perhaps it was a bit of a rush and more time will be required to get this right, and perhaps some clarification needed.
The trust board is relatively small very hardworking group, and we continue to grow our membership above 1000 particularly lately which has surprised me. As well as that we have a good number of achievements under our belt and I feel we can be self assured and relatively confident, and i can assure you we aren't going anywhere and certainly not because of this group after all they invited us along to the meeting. And also not forgetting many of these people are members and came to our launch.
At the same time we must remain humble and open to the wider fan base, if anything I think we've lacked more input from those quarters and our agm being on a matchday is something I think we won't repeat.
Perhaps this is an opportunity to improve that area, and maybe add some to the board, or maybe some kind of consultation group, again I have no problem with that in fact I think we could do with a couple of new faces on the board. Also awareness of the trust has grown massively even since the Autumn.
I get why some people feel this should have been done differently but I think we can work with whatever situation to achieve a positive outcome.
You must be extremely disappointed that two of your Board members have decided to put their names to the statement, yet neither of them have bothered to respond to any of the genuine concerns raised by several people on this thread.
They're hardly a bunch of militant revolutionaries.
you have the right to be disappointed in this Raz but your response is one I hoped for, remember when I said a chairman needs to not resort to bickering in public
I am waiting with interest to hear the answers to my questions as to why the trust could not have led this and why now
The Trust purports to give all fans a voice and represent their interest, specifically to preserve the long term future of the club and its identity. If we see a threat to the latter, the Trust is absolutely the body through which - and in whose name - any action should be taken. And absolutely the medium through which the wider fan base are alerted to the key issues involved.
In fact I'm a member of the Trust in order that I throw my weight behind response to any such threat. I've paid fees twice, but when the first issue of serious concern arises it's an entirely different group planning the way ahead.
So no, this group doesn't represent me - it can't, because we already have the Trust to do that on the objectives you guys have. Equally I don't understand the concerns - I can't understand the concerns because no-one has articulated or evidenced them. Some of what I'm hearing is certainly of concern, but I certainly don't want battle stations drawn in my name based on rumour.
My view is that this is divisive and that's evident across a number of Charlton media including this very thread. You should at the very least ensure the group is accountable to the Trust and working to the broader views of the supporter base - otherwise you're trying to secure a future that looks like a small group of like minded people want it to look. Frankly speaking, it would be hard to defend an accusation that it was self-serving and indulgent.
I'm happy to accept there is reason for concern - but mobilising the fan base won't be achieved by disenfranchising the membership of the Trust who thought they were buying into something this lot have ignored.
Whichever way you look at it, the message from this group is that they don't believe the Trust is capable of achieving their own objectives, which is insulting to you, your fellow officers and every single member.
Is it the Trust's fault for not being more vocal, more quickly?
Or is it the alternative group's fault for failing to support the Trust by going through that channel?
A bit of both, I feel. But it's not too late to put matters right. Raz and Airman, you'll have read the views on here - why not get your heads together to see how this can be pursued under the auspices of the Trust, but involving the signatories, whom I accept have a lot to offer.
And if not, please come back on here and tell us why not.
Has the Group got a structure i.e. Chairman, Secretary etc.?
If so who was elected to the various roles?
Was Wednesdays meeting minuted? If so a copy of said minutes would be welcomed.
If you are invited to meet Roland or Katrien who will attend on behalf of the group?
Who is going to put together the questions for the meeting and where will the input come from?
Are all members of the Group on Charlton Life?
How will the Group convince Roland or Katrien that they are representative of Charlton Supporters?
Thanks
Who cares how many groups are out there trying to get RD talking. If more try, more have a chance of succeeding.
Its good to see many names who have a history fighting for the club, and who know what it can take to achieve its aims.
Many people i am sure are knocking them for going up against the trust, but lets face it should they do well, we will get answers. If they don't, we don't loose anything. Yet those who's names are on that list stand to loose more should they make themselves unpopular, it is there choice, let them make it. For the average fan its like one of of these "no win no fee" companies, great for us.
Consider the alternative. If we were not consulted or invited and this statement was made without us having any involvement? Is that preferable? Would n't that undermine us more?
People are entitled to their opinions and I've given mine.
We will carry on as before, talk about this face to face on Monday and come back with a plan.
But we are all entitled to a view/opinion.
and was there any indication given as to why the threat of RD is greater than TJ and MS look at the plans submitted for sparrows lane it seems we are very much in his order of importance