Do you have an agenda / set of Issues .. will you share it with the Trust membership?
Will you raise questions on behalf of the Supporters group?
Will you feed back in detail to the membership / supporter base
Also, when was it arranged, cos I'm fairly sure this is the first we've heard of it on here, and I can't see anything obvious on the trust website either.
At one level there is the delicious irony that a "new body" announcing it was forming to strengthen the dialogue between the clubs' supporters and the club seems either unable or unwilling to communicate with the very people it purports to represent. One is almost tempted to ask if people have been taking lessons from Messrs Slater, Jiminez and the mysterious investor.
Hardly a stellar start is it?
The contributions to this thread present precisely the predicted challenges.
There have been many excellent threads covering the concerns over this new initiative. Such concerns in themselves do not mean a "new collective" are not perfectly entitled to express their views. If as a private group they choose to approach the club then they should do so.
However if you claim to do so "on behalf of supporters" when existing organizations are already fulfilling such role, and then fail to clarify, what you are seeking to achieve, and why any such requirement can not be achieved via such organisations it has to raise legitimate concerns.
I could categorize this whole scenario on many different levels, from slightly irritating thru to fundamentally "Machiavellian". Though such description is somewhat light hearted it has the potential to be more serious than that.
Let me explain - from the stated vision statements and aims; "to seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club" "the group is seeking an urgent face-to-face meeting with Roland Duchatelet or Katrien Miere in order try to get a better understanding of the owner’s intentions" "If we are unable to enter into a useful dialogue with the owner or his representative then it is our intention to call a public meeting in early April to take matters forward" "This group is not intended to be exclusive"
This is damaging at 2 levels
What is there in such statement not only entirely appropriate to the Trust, they are functions they are already fulfilling or could fulfil. To those wishing to question the value of the Trust you need to recognize any organisation can only operate to the level it is empowered. It is no point challenging what they have delivered if as supporters we do not empower them to act on our behalf.
This latest initiative, intentionally or not, does not only NOT empower the Trust, it by pursuing its own path impinges and dilutes the empowerment of the Trust.
The obvious conclusion to this approach has to be there are "unstated" aims and ambitions. In which case it is not only disingenuous it is dishonest.
Rather than state the true aims and ambitions, it like any modern day political manifesto, offers the "cuddly but meaning less fluff"
"with particular reference to the achievements that we have all had working together with the club over the last 25 years"
"In the meantime, we want to let fans know that we are all coming together for the good of the club and that however they are feeling about the current situation there are experienced and committed people working behind the scenes to improve it".
"This group is not intended to be exclusive"
So we have the paradox of a group of people, a number having been professionally employed in the communications field, sufficiently skilled in such arts to offer their political CV but apparently stumbling to tell us any aspect of their real aims and intentions.
No matter where you sit in the argument - that is unhealthy.
An argument based on purely a prior track record is no argument at all. It is akin to Cameron & Clegg arguing as they sort of won the last election they won't bother with the next election as everybody will support us again. The "arch nemesis" of many, Richard Murray, had a stellar record for a decade - many now go out of their way to insult him.
I have no interest in the personalities involved. I am interested in any event or initiative that may do harm to the club I support, and/or the established fans organizations designated to support it.
I sincerely hope it is not the case but I fear ladies and gentlemen there maybe something fundamentally unpleasant going on here.
When you consider the announcement, not one but two character assassinations of Duchatelet by the Mail, both extremely selective in their content, when the club usually struggles to get any mention in the national media, you do have to wonder if someone is pursuing vested interests.
Are these the "lost values" everybody seems so keen to recover?
I usually like Patrick Collins but that article was lacking in any substance or new insight. It was basically saying that Powell was a lovely man and how could that horrible Belgian sack him. No mention of the positive things that Roland is doing, spending his hard earned on the pitch and the prospective renovation of the training ground. At the end of the day Roland has forked out a lot of money buying us and no matter what committee is formed, whether we like it or not,he will do it his way. That is not to say that questions can't be asked, but I still think that it should be under the auspicious of the Supporters Trust.
At one level there is the delicious irony that a "new body" announcing it was forming to strengthen the dialogue between the clubs' supporters and the club seems either unable or unwilling to communicate with the very people it purports to represent. One is almost tempted to ask if people have been taking lessons from Messrs Slater, Jiminez and the mysterious investor.
Hardly a stellar start is it?
The contributions to this thread present precisely the predicted challenges.
There have been many excellent threads covering the concerns over this new initiative. Such concerns in themselves do not mean a "new collective" are not perfectly entitled to express their views. If as a private group they choose to approach the club then they should do so.
However if you claim to do so "on behalf of supporters" when existing organizations are already fulfilling such role, and then fail to clarify, what you are seeking to achieve, and why any such requirement can not be achieved via such organisations it has to raise legitimate concerns.
I could categorize this whole scenario on many different levels, from slightly irritating thru to fundamentally "Machiavellian". Though such description is somewhat light hearted it has the potential to be more serious than that.
Let me explain - from the stated vision statements and aims; "to seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club" "the group is seeking an urgent face-to-face meeting with Roland Duchatelet or Katrien Miere in order try to get a better understanding of the owner’s intentions" "If we are unable to enter into a useful dialogue with the owner or his representative then it is our intention to call a public meeting in early April to take matters forward" "This group is not intended to be exclusive"
This is damaging at 2 levels
What is there in such statement not only entirely appropriate to the Trust, they are functions they are already fulfilling or could fulfil. To those wishing to question the value of the Trust you need to recognize any organisation can only operate to the level it is empowered. It is no point challenging what they have delivered if as supporters we do not empower them to act on our behalf.
This latest initiative, intentionally or not, does not only NOT empower the Trust, it by pursuing its own path impinges and dilutes the empowerment of the Trust.
The obvious conclusion to this approach has to be there are "unstated" aims and ambitions. In which case it is not only disingenuous it is dishonest.
Rather than state the true aims and ambitions, it like any modern day political manifesto, offers the "cuddly but meaning less fluff"
"with particular reference to the achievements that we have all had working together with the club over the last 25 years"
"In the meantime, we want to let fans know that we are all coming together for the good of the club and that however they are feeling about the current situation there are experienced and committed people working behind the scenes to improve it".
"This group is not intended to be exclusive"
So we have the paradox of a group of people, a number having been professionally employed in the communications field, sufficiently skilled in such arts to offer their political CV but apparently stumbling to tell us any aspect of their real aims and intentions.
No matter where you sit in the argument - that is unhealthy.
An argument based on purely a prior track record is no argument at all. It is akin to Cameron & Clegg arguing as they sort of won the last election they won't bother with the next election as everybody will support us again. The "arch nemesis" of many, Richard Murray, had a stellar record for a decade - many now go out of their way to insult him.
I have no interest in the personalities involved. I am interested in any event or initiative that may do harm to the club I support, and/or the established fans organizations designated to support it.
I sincerely hope it is not the case but I fear ladies and gentlemen there maybe something fundamentally unpleasant going on here.
When you consider the announcement, not one but two character assassinations of Duchatelet by the Mail, both extremely selective in their content, when the club usually struggles to get any mention in the national media, you do have to wonder if someone is pursuing vested interests.
Are these the "lost values" everybody seems so keen to recover?
Airman & others within the group - we need clarity, the opening post was just that, an opener and no more.
You need to reveal to us your stated aims. I can do no more than endorse the statement from Grapevine: 'and then fail to clarify, what you are seeking to achieve, and why any such requirement can not be achieved via such organisations it has to raise legitimate concerns'
@creepyaddick spot on my view, can u spare a few evenings a month?
Unfortunately due to work & location it would be very difficult, but I admire what you & the others are doing from a distance on behalf of supporters of our great club. I personally feel that the Trust should try to encourage the G21 to join & move forward within the trust as they do have some very influential names on the list that could certainly give a big boost to the Trust credentials. The names on the list certainly have experience in a call to arms situation should one and I'm not saying it will ever happen arise, as IMHO I believe the club is in a much better position than it has been for a long long time.
Copied & pasted from ITV. An explanation from Steve Dixon.
"Ladies & gentlemen, I was simply responding to what seemed to me to be a very reasonable request to invite this forum to take part in the conversation that took place last week.
I can't go into a huge amount of detail with regard to the discussion, mainly because I arrived as it was winding down, as I always struggle to get to evening games much before about 7.15pm.
I can only speak for myself here - everything that I say is my own view - but having read a fair amount of what's been posted, it's clear that there are some legitimate questions to answer.
I'll start with the obvious one. Unless I am much mistaken, this is not a campaign for Chris Powell to be re-instated. I was dismayed, demoralised and upset by his departure for a number of reasons (which I will happily go into if asked) but I accept that as the owner of the business it is the absolute right of M.Duchatelet to employ whomever he chooses. If he doesn't want to employ Chris Powell, then that is his choice, after all he is paying the salaries.
What I don't accept is what appears to me (again, my opinion only - I am not putting myself up as a spokesperson) to be a change of direction for the club and an erosion of our identity. By which I mean membership of this ridiculous network of clubs. This idea that players can be shifted from one club to another and still have some affinity with whichever club they are playing for, in my view demeans us all. I don't want Charlton to be a club where the chairman sends players for purposes which may not be for the benefit of CAFC, but instead for some other purpose.
I also don't want to see Charlton's magnificent youth system used for the benefit of another club or clubs.
But, the bottom line for me is that with every passing development, it seems less and less like Charlton. I know that there are some who don't care who is wearing the shirt as long as the team are winning. I understand that view, but I don't share it. I have no desire to see Charlton take the field with a team full of anonymous Hungarians and Belgians, no matter how good they might be, because they will have no affinity for the club.
Can I also answer one other question/criticism. I've seen it said, both here and CL that we are all just trying to re-live the past. I promise you that isn't the case for me. I never post on CL and I've not been involved in the supporters groups up to this point because I wanted precisely not to go back 20 years! But now I am worried for the club. I genuinely fear for the future. But believe me, if I am wrong, and RD is here for the long term and the best interests of the club, then you'll hear no more from me. All I really want to do is rock up on a Saturday and watch my team, same as you."
They have misjudged the situation. Their reticence to post speaks volumes. Seeing as at least one of them bangs on about freedom of information all the time, perhaps they might feel free to to inform us of the answers to multiple questions posted on this thread. Often been jokes about the clique on here and now we have one albeit a self appointed grandiose group purporting to speak on my behalf.
if all the worry is about players then I understand it but don't agree , under murray, dowie, pardew especially we had shit loads with no affinity or affection to cafc and only here for the cheque, its why we are here now if truth be told
so what other info have people got that they are sitting on
The suggestion that 'anonymous Hungarians and Belgians' filling the team puzzles me. Why would their affinity to the club be any more suspect than if we signed some 'anonymous' kid from say Rotheram? Has there ever been a time when the whole team was made up of dyed in the wool Charlton fans? Surely players learn and grow to love the team they play for or they don't. There's been plenty of English players who have worn the shirt and not given two shits about the club.
"We all need to work together on this. I think the least we deserve is that Roland Duchatelet shows his face in front of the fans, takes questions and explains his plans, so that people can make their own judgement. I think the trust could lead on that".
Three guesses as to who posted this less than a week ago?
"We all need to work together on this. I think the least we deserve is that Roland Duchatelet shows his face in front of the fans, takes questions and explains his plans, so that people can make their own judgement. I think the trust could lead on that".
Three guesses as to who posted this less than a week ago?
The pilot of that Malaysian plane David Moyes Headphones Norm
At one level there is the delicious irony that a "new body" announcing it was forming to strengthen the dialogue between the clubs' supporters and the club seems either unable or unwilling to communicate with the very people it purports to represent. One is almost tempted to ask if people have been taking lessons from Messrs Slater, Jiminez and the mysterious investor.
Hardly a stellar start is it?
The contributions to this thread present precisely the predicted challenges.
There have been many excellent threads covering the concerns over this new initiative. Such concerns in themselves do not mean a "new collective" are not perfectly entitled to express their views. If as a private group they choose to approach the club then they should do so.
However if you claim to do so "on behalf of supporters" when existing organizations are already fulfilling such role, and then fail to clarify, what you are seeking to achieve, and why any such requirement can not be achieved via such organisations it has to raise legitimate concerns.
I could categorize this whole scenario on many different levels, from slightly irritating thru to fundamentally "Machiavellian". Though such description is somewhat light hearted it has the potential to be more serious than that.
Let me explain - from the stated vision statements and aims; "to seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club" "the group is seeking an urgent face-to-face meeting with Roland Duchatelet or Katrien Miere in order try to get a better understanding of the owner’s intentions" "If we are unable to enter into a useful dialogue with the owner or his representative then it is our intention to call a public meeting in early April to take matters forward" "This group is not intended to be exclusive"
This is damaging at 2 levels
What is there in such statement not only entirely appropriate to the Trust, they are functions they are already fulfilling or could fulfil. To those wishing to question the value of the Trust you need to recognize any organisation can only operate to the level it is empowered. It is no point challenging what they have delivered if as supporters we do not empower them to act on our behalf.
This latest initiative, intentionally or not, does not only NOT empower the Trust, it by pursuing its own path impinges and dilutes the empowerment of the Trust.
The obvious conclusion to this approach has to be there are "unstated" aims and ambitions. In which case it is not only disingenuous it is dishonest.
Rather than state the true aims and ambitions, it like any modern day political manifesto, offers the "cuddly but meaning less fluff"
"with particular reference to the achievements that we have all had working together with the club over the last 25 years"
"In the meantime, we want to let fans know that we are all coming together for the good of the club and that however they are feeling about the current situation there are experienced and committed people working behind the scenes to improve it".
"This group is not intended to be exclusive"
So we have the paradox of a group of people, a number having been professionally employed in the communications field, sufficiently skilled in such arts to offer their political CV but apparently stumbling to tell us any aspect of their real aims and intentions.
No matter where you sit in the argument - that is unhealthy.
An argument based on purely a prior track record is no argument at all. It is akin to Cameron & Clegg arguing as they sort of won the last election they won't bother with the next election as everybody will support us again. The "arch nemesis" of many, Richard Murray, had a stellar record for a decade - many now go out of their way to insult him.
I have no interest in the personalities involved. I am interested in any event or initiative that may do harm to the club I support, and/or the established fans organizations designated to support it.
I sincerely hope it is not the case but I fear ladies and gentlemen there maybe something fundamentally unpleasant going on here.
When you consider the announcement, not one but two character assassinations of Duchatelet by the Mail, both extremely selective in their content, when the club usually struggles to get any mention in the national media, you do have to wonder if someone is pursuing vested interests.
Are these the "lost values" everybody seems so keen to recover?
You've certainly articulated my feelings there.
I might also point out that "experienced and committed people working behind the scenes" doesn't sound anything but "exclusive" to me.
Mundell mentioned earlier that he was considering his membership of the Trust. Well that makes two of us. If the Trust members within the G21 are representing the Trust, then as a member I would have expected to hear why this group needs to exist when the Trust has the response to such threats in their mission statement. If they aren't representing the Trust, then I wish its board would stop pretending that their presence means the Trust is involved. Not good enough frankly.
The worst thing of all is the radio silence from the G21 at the first challenge. Not good enough to say 'if their heart is in the right place I'm with them.' How the hell do we know that? They may think they have the club's best interests at heart, but if they are a vocal minority then it's little more than self-serving. Worse, it may compromise the Trust's ability to hold constructive and meaningful discussions in the long term - why? Because if RD/KM gets a hard time from the militant wing claiming to represent all supporters, then I doubt they'll be rushing to appoint them to the board.
Posted by Airman Brown 11 March re; Season Ticker Strike "We all need to work together on this. I think the least we deserve is that Roland Duchatelet shows his face in front of the fans, takes questions and explains his plans, so that people can make their own judgement. I think the trust could lead on that.”
If this is/was the case AB would you kindly explain what has made you change your mind (no crime in that I grant you) and why with others (the apparent elusive Q21) you now, in accordance with your given ‘Supporters’ statement, have decided to take a completely different, contrary approach?
Again I think more and more is revealed on this thread about the situation. And hats off to grapevine49 for his complete analysis of the current situation and questions about how fans should organise. Sorry to be a tease but I operate under collective responsibility and the Trust meets soon after which point we can release a statement covering some of the issues raised. Regarding the meeting with Katrien Miere we need to clarify elements of the engagement and agree a release with the club. My announcement was a tad premature but I trust people can understand the timing of why a board member of an organisation with 1,000 members and a network of nearly 5,000 fan emails and Twitter links might wish to emphasise that at this point we are fully engaged with the club with a view to both supporting it AND exploring club strategy and asking questions. By the way I believe there is one vacancy on the board if anyone with time energy and experience wishes to apply!
There is a brand new video from RD coming out this week on the cafc youtube, why not wait and see what he has to say on that video before all this commotion?
There is a brand new video from RD coming out this week on the cafc youtube, why not wait and see what he has to say on that video before all this commotion?
Because he's spun a pack of lies regarding Powell and the squad in his other interviews so far.
The suggestion that 'anonymous Hungarians and Belgians' filling the team puzzles me. Why would their affinity to the club be any more suspect than if we signed some 'anonymous' kid from say Rotheram? Has there ever been a time when the whole team was made up of dyed in the wool Charlton fans? Surely players learn and grow to love the team they play for or they don't. There's been plenty of English players who have worn the shirt and not given two shits about the club.
Agree with this. I'm not too fussed about where our players come from. Most players who pull on the Charlton shirt are not and never will be fans regardless of their background. They're pros, as long as they earn the pay-cheque, that's all that matters.
BUT I sympathise with some of Steve's other concerns expressed in that post. I want anonymous Hungarians to be playing for Charlton because they are the best players for us and our future interests, not for another club or because they will benefit the business model of a "network".
I'm NOT saying that will be the case as we go forward. But I do think until we get concrete assurances otherwise, it's quite understandable to have concerns and they should not be shot down or dismissed.
My word, this is all so Charlton. All so Charlton Life, actually.
Having read most of this, and skim-read the last few pages, what we appear to have is one group of supporters (now dubbed the G21, a few of whom I know very well as some of you are aware) who - possibly rashly - called a meeting after Powell's sacking, in order to attempt to open a dialogue with the board regarding their plans for the future of this football club we all hold so dearly to our hearts.
Okay. Cool. Fine. This group is attempting to do something positive, maybe not in the right manner. I'm in Bristol, but an invitation was extended to me to come to this meeting on Wednesday. It was fairly low-key, so to answer points about exclusivity - yeah. It was most likely exclusive, because having more than that many people in a public, neutral ("politically" speaking) location would have likely been unmanageable and impractical. A certain group of "stalwarts" who have contributed massively to the club over the years took it upon themselves to get together, as they all know each other and are all reasonable people. I don't see too much of a problem with that.
Are they stepping on the Trust's toes? In some regard, perhaps. A meeting with the board is requested - not unreasonable, but perhaps this is best done through the more established body, rather than what some people are seeing as 21 particularly riled people who, let us not forget, still have the best interests of the club at heart. Frankly, I don't understand why there have been hundreds of posts criticising these people on the content of their character, or their reputation, or on their aims - which I assume have neither been fully nor clearly established - when all they're doing is trying to find out what's happening.
I do understand the examination of this group and the Trust's power dynamic. That being said, I don't think there's much to worry about. These 21 people are not claiming to be the Trust, or the voice of everyone.
This has turned into a pissing contest. "Ooh look! I wanna help the club and have done so in a rushed, ill-thought-out manner!" vs "Ooh look! I wanna sound important and raise quasi-serious points as to whether this is actually constructive while being totally unconstructive myself with regard to attempting to figure out what's happening at Charlton!"
All that needs to be done paddy is for G21 to answer the questions posed in numerous posts on here as to why now and why not via the trust
Alternatively there was no need for the OP to post anyting in the first place if the open dialog that is requred by this group from RD is not permitted on this thread
Comments
At one level there is the delicious irony that a "new body" announcing it was forming to strengthen the dialogue between the clubs' supporters and the club seems either unable or unwilling to communicate with the very people it purports to represent. One is almost tempted to ask if people have been taking lessons from Messrs Slater, Jiminez and the mysterious investor.
Hardly a stellar start is it?
The contributions to this thread present precisely the predicted challenges.
There have been many excellent threads covering the concerns over this new initiative. Such concerns in themselves do not mean a "new collective" are not perfectly entitled to express their views. If as a private group they choose to approach the club then they should do so.
However if you claim to do so "on behalf of supporters" when existing organizations are already fulfilling such role, and then fail to clarify, what you are seeking to achieve, and why any such requirement can not be achieved via such organisations it has to raise legitimate concerns.
I could categorize this whole scenario on many different levels, from slightly irritating thru to fundamentally "Machiavellian". Though such description is somewhat light hearted it has the potential to be more serious than that.
Let me explain - from the stated vision statements and aims;
"to seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club"
"the group is seeking an urgent face-to-face meeting with Roland Duchatelet or Katrien Miere in order try to get a better understanding of the owner’s intentions"
"If we are unable to enter into a useful dialogue with the owner or his representative then it is our intention to call a public meeting in early April to take matters forward"
"This group is not intended to be exclusive"
This is damaging at 2 levels
What is there in such statement not only entirely appropriate to the Trust, they are functions they are already fulfilling or could fulfil. To those wishing to question the value of the Trust you need to recognize any organisation can only operate to the level it is empowered. It is no point challenging what they have delivered if as supporters we do not empower them to act on our behalf.
This latest initiative, intentionally or not, does not only NOT empower the Trust, it by pursuing its own path impinges and dilutes the empowerment of the Trust.
The obvious conclusion to this approach has to be there are "unstated" aims and ambitions. In which case it is not only disingenuous it is dishonest.
Rather than state the true aims and ambitions, it like any modern day political manifesto, offers the "cuddly but meaning less fluff"
"with particular reference to the achievements that we have all had working together with the club over the last 25 years"
"In the meantime, we want to let fans know that we are all coming together for the good of the club and that however they are feeling about the current situation there are experienced and committed people working behind the scenes to improve it".
"This group is not intended to be exclusive"
So we have the paradox of a group of people, a number having been professionally employed in the communications field, sufficiently skilled in such arts to offer their political CV but apparently stumbling to tell us any aspect of their real aims and intentions.
No matter where you sit in the argument - that is unhealthy.
An argument based on purely a prior track record is no argument at all. It is akin to Cameron & Clegg arguing as they sort of won the last election they won't bother with the next election as everybody will support us again. The "arch nemesis" of many, Richard Murray, had a stellar record for a decade - many now go out of their way to insult him.
I have no interest in the personalities involved. I am interested in any event or initiative that may do harm to the club I support, and/or the established fans organizations designated to support it.
I sincerely hope it is not the case but I fear ladies and gentlemen there maybe something fundamentally unpleasant going on here.
When you consider the announcement, not one but two character assassinations of Duchatelet by the Mail, both extremely selective in their content, when the club usually struggles to get any mention in the national media, you do have to wonder if someone is pursuing vested interests.
Are these the "lost values" everybody seems so keen to recover?
Its like everything you want to say but it never comes out right
Grapevine cap doffed again
You need to reveal to us your stated aims. I can do no more than endorse the statement from Grapevine: 'and then fail to clarify, what you are seeking to achieve, and why any such requirement can not be achieved via such organisations it has to raise legitimate concerns'
Over to you ... I hope.
I personally feel that the Trust should try to encourage the G21 to join & move forward within the trust as they do have some very influential names on the list that could certainly give a big boost to the Trust credentials.
The names on the list certainly have experience in a call to arms situation should one and I'm not saying it will ever happen arise, as IMHO I believe the club is in a much better position than it has been for a long long time.
See some on here obviously believe they have some earth shattering cafc in danger news but they for whatever reason are with holding it
I don't think its just Rick who has the info either but he put his head up there with the boycot ST thread and then this One
So it makes people like me very cynical as to why
If people want to come across as saviours and that this group will help expose this then put your info out there on the ST thread and this one
"Ladies & gentlemen, I was simply responding to what seemed to me to be a very reasonable request to invite this forum to take part in the conversation that took place last week.
I can't go into a huge amount of detail with regard to the discussion, mainly because I arrived as it was winding down, as I always struggle to get to evening games much before about 7.15pm.
I can only speak for myself here - everything that I say is my own view - but having read a fair amount of what's been posted, it's clear that there are some legitimate questions to answer.
I'll start with the obvious one. Unless I am much mistaken, this is not a campaign for Chris Powell to be re-instated. I was dismayed, demoralised and upset by his departure for a number of reasons (which I will happily go into if asked) but I accept that as the owner of the business it is the absolute right of M.Duchatelet to employ whomever he chooses. If he doesn't want to employ Chris Powell, then that is his choice, after all he is paying the salaries.
What I don't accept is what appears to me (again, my opinion only - I am not putting myself up as a spokesperson) to be a change of direction for the club and an erosion of our identity. By which I mean membership of this ridiculous network of clubs. This idea that players can be shifted from one club to another and still have some affinity with whichever club they are playing for, in my view demeans us all. I don't want Charlton to be a club where the chairman sends players for purposes which may not be for the benefit of CAFC, but instead for some other purpose.
I also don't want to see Charlton's magnificent youth system used for the benefit of another club or clubs.
But, the bottom line for me is that with every passing development, it seems less and less like Charlton. I know that there are some who don't care who is wearing the shirt as long as the team are winning. I understand that view, but I don't share it. I have no desire to see Charlton take the field with a team full of anonymous Hungarians and Belgians, no matter how good they might be, because they will have no affinity for the club.
Can I also answer one other question/criticism. I've seen it said, both here and CL that we are all just trying to re-live the past. I promise you that isn't the case for me. I never post on CL and I've not been involved in the supporters groups up to this point because I wanted precisely not to go back 20 years! But now I am worried for the club. I genuinely fear for the future. But believe me, if I am wrong, and RD is here for the long term and the best interests of the club, then you'll hear no more from me. All I really want to do is rock up on a Saturday and watch my team, same as you."
Let's be hearing you.
so what other info have people got that they are sitting on
Three guesses as to who posted this less than a week ago?
David Moyes
Headphones Norm
I might also point out that "experienced and committed people working behind the scenes" doesn't sound anything but "exclusive" to me.
Mundell mentioned earlier that he was considering his membership of the Trust. Well that makes two of us. If the Trust members within the G21 are representing the Trust, then as a member I would have expected to hear why this group needs to exist when the Trust has the response to such threats in their mission statement. If they aren't representing the Trust, then I wish its board would stop pretending that their presence means the Trust is involved. Not good enough frankly.
The worst thing of all is the radio silence from the G21 at the first challenge. Not good enough to say 'if their heart is in the right place I'm with them.' How the hell do we know that? They may think they have the club's best interests at heart, but if they are a vocal minority then it's little more than self-serving. Worse, it may compromise the Trust's ability to hold constructive and meaningful discussions in the long term - why? Because if RD/KM gets a hard time from the militant wing claiming to represent all supporters, then I doubt they'll be rushing to appoint them to the board.
Not in my name, guys, not in my name.
"We all need to work together on this. I think the least we deserve is that Roland Duchatelet shows his face in front of the fans, takes questions and explains his plans, so that people can make their own judgement. I think the trust could lead on that.”
If this is/was the case AB would you kindly explain what has made you change your mind (no crime in that I grant you) and why with others (the apparent elusive Q21) you now, in accordance with your given ‘Supporters’ statement, have decided to take a completely different, contrary approach?
And hats off to grapevine49 for his complete analysis of the current situation and questions about how fans should organise.
Sorry to be a tease but I operate under collective responsibility and the Trust meets soon after which point we can release a statement covering some of the issues raised.
Regarding the meeting with Katrien Miere we need to clarify elements of the engagement and agree a release with the club.
My announcement was a tad premature but I trust people can understand the timing of why a board member of an organisation with 1,000 members and a network of nearly 5,000 fan emails and Twitter links might wish to emphasise that at this point we are fully engaged with the club with a view to both supporting it AND exploring club strategy and asking questions.
By the way I believe there is one vacancy on the board if anyone with time energy and experience wishes to apply!
Agree with this. I'm not too fussed about where our players come from. Most players who pull on the Charlton shirt are not and never will be fans regardless of their background. They're pros, as long as they earn the pay-cheque, that's all that matters.
BUT I sympathise with some of Steve's other concerns expressed in that post. I want anonymous Hungarians to be playing for Charlton because they are the best players for us and our future interests, not for another club or because they will benefit the business model of a "network".
I'm NOT saying that will be the case as we go forward. But I do think until we get concrete assurances otherwise, it's quite understandable to have concerns and they should not be shot down or dismissed.
Having read most of this, and skim-read the last few pages, what we appear to have is one group of supporters (now dubbed the G21, a few of whom I know very well as some of you are aware) who - possibly rashly - called a meeting after Powell's sacking, in order to attempt to open a dialogue with the board regarding their plans for the future of this football club we all hold so dearly to our hearts.
Okay. Cool. Fine. This group is attempting to do something positive, maybe not in the right manner. I'm in Bristol, but an invitation was extended to me to come to this meeting on Wednesday. It was fairly low-key, so to answer points about exclusivity - yeah. It was most likely exclusive, because having more than that many people in a public, neutral ("politically" speaking) location would have likely been unmanageable and impractical. A certain group of "stalwarts" who have contributed massively to the club over the years took it upon themselves to get together, as they all know each other and are all reasonable people. I don't see too much of a problem with that.
Are they stepping on the Trust's toes? In some regard, perhaps. A meeting with the board is requested - not unreasonable, but perhaps this is best done through the more established body, rather than what some people are seeing as 21 particularly riled people who, let us not forget, still have the best interests of the club at heart. Frankly, I don't understand why there have been hundreds of posts criticising these people on the content of their character, or their reputation, or on their aims - which I assume have neither been fully nor clearly established - when all they're doing is trying to find out what's happening.
I do understand the examination of this group and the Trust's power dynamic. That being said, I don't think there's much to worry about. These 21 people are not claiming to be the Trust, or the voice of everyone.
This has turned into a pissing contest. "Ooh look! I wanna help the club and have done so in a rushed, ill-thought-out manner!" vs "Ooh look! I wanna sound important and raise quasi-serious points as to whether this is actually constructive while being totally unconstructive myself with regard to attempting to figure out what's happening at Charlton!"
Alternatively there was no need for the OP to post anyting in the first place if the open dialog that is requred by this group from RD is not permitted on this thread