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?
The network of clubs is unconventional but I'm prepared to give it a chance. I respect a lot of the names in the G21 but surprised this is a battle that's being chosen for an immediate call to arms.
Good luck to all the folks putting in hours of their spare time for the betterment of the club.
Sadly I suspect a lot of opposing comment to this group is based on pre-conceived dislike of the individual(s) rather than on the issues at hand.
Strip away anything 'Airman Brown' related. It is nothing to do with whether you have any time for Airman Brown's or Prague's or any of the others previous views, that's almost irrelevent already.
It is about the future direction, identity and soul of the club you support. Whether it is simply the plaything of an individual or for the betterment of another club. If that's for you, and may result in seeing 'better football', no problem.
But please don't snipe at people who are seriously concerned that the club the have invested 10/20/30/40/50 years of emotional support in may be turning into something that they never wanted it to be, and are fearful of where it is heading in its future.
(With apologies to AFKA but your post on the other thread, seemed very apt...)
@Bournemouth Addick whilst there maybe some personality issues, I think there is genuine confusion is why the G21have not worked through the Trust and that is more the issue than personality.
For example, G21 demand a meeting and it is revealed that a meeting is planned, so why can the G21 questions be raised through this meeting, subject to the terms of reference agreed with the club & date.
Then they need to express why and not leave people. Second guessing its as harming to their own credibilty as it is he trusts
People all so shouldn't just take for gospel what this group thinks either just because of their past they should do so because of all the package they bring to the table
The main questions on here support the need for these questions to be asked but want to understand why the trusts make up doesn't allow it
Seeing as we pay into the trust if it doesn't work and this group know a better way then tell people and get the trust working for us in the correct way
And just tell people why RD is more dangerous than the people who we were told over and over again in the last 24 months were eroding our Identity and killing our club
Why not appear then and if they had I would suggest the support for them would be in the 80s not the low 30s as it seems now
One of the aims of CAS Trust is to get a representative onto the board but here we are almost having to beg just to get a meeting with Katrien. Doesn't that concern people ?
Sadly I suspect a lot of opposing comment to this group is based on pre-conceived dislike of the individual(s) rather than on the issues at hand.
Firstly you're the 2nd person to say this and it's a frankly ridiculous assumption. I get fed up with a response to serious questioning being turned round into some kind of dislike for Airman. In my case it's simply not true.
Secondly, there are some serious issues and questions being raised in this thread - but you seem to see them as 'opposing comments'. Unless the justified questions are answered by the G21, how can I oppose them?
But please don't snipe at people who are seriously concerned that the club the have invested 10/20/30/40/50 years of emotional support may be turning into something that they never wanted it to be, and are fearful of where it is heading in its future.
Please don't make assumptions about me or continue to snipe at the questions I've raised as I'm also seriously concerned that the club I have invested 40 years of emotional support may be turning into something that I never wanted it to be, and have worries of where it is heading in its future.
However, I believe the people best place to ask the relevant questions to the owners are The Trust - some of whom have at least PM'd me to give some background, rather than the total lack of response from others in this supergroup.
I'm not sure of the point of this, rick I know and admire the work you did at the club and love VOTV, but it was the old regime that dismissed you. Apart from selling yann which was sad but probably their only chance of making money from him and doing what most new owners would do and sacking the manager, sad yes but a replacement was bought in immediately, what exactly had RD done wrong to warrant an MI6 style meeting? Also what is wrong with going through the CAST? Or don't you trust them either? I'm sorry I just don't get it.
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 totally agree with everything but I think you've missed one very vital statement that they made.
To be an umbrella group
They do not wish to work through the trust or any other group, they intend to take the lead. For me this is very damaging to the future of the trust which is elected whether people individually are members and voted or not. This group has appointed itself as the supreme body, who the trust and others can feed in to but not direct. In other words the views of the few outweigh the views of the many. Not on in my view. If this meeting in April happens and everyone says they do not want this group to contact the board for this meeting but for the trust to do it would they listen? That question MUST be answered.
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 totally agree with everything but I think you've missed one very vital statement that they made.
To be an umbrella group
They do not wish to work through the trust or any other group, they intend to take the lead. For me this is very damaging to the future of the trust which is elected whether people individually are members and voted or not. This group has appointed itself as the supreme body, who the trust and others can feed in to but not direct. In other words the views of the few outweigh the views of the many. Not on in my view. If this meeting in April happens and everyone says they do not want this group to contact the board for this meeting but for the trust to do it would they listen? That question MUST be answered.
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?
I'm all for dialogue and two-way conversation. More than anything, I want to protect our heritage and identity but IMO, this is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut situation. This is all something that can be dealt with by CAST
Sadly I suspect a lot of opposing comment to this group is based on pre-conceived dislike of the individual(s) rather than on the issues at hand.
Firstly you're the 2nd person to say this and it's a frankly ridiculous assumption. I get fed up with a response to serious questioning being turned round into some kind of dislike for Airman. In my case it's simply not true.
Secondly, there are some serious issues and questions being raised in this thread - but you seem to see them as 'opposing comments'. Unless the justified questions are answered by the G21, how can I oppose them?
But please don't snipe at people who are seriously concerned that the club the have invested 10/20/30/40/50 years of emotional support may be turning into something that they never wanted it to be, and are fearful of where it is heading in its future.
Please don't make assumptions about me or continue to snipe at the questions I've raised as I'm also seriously concerned that the club I have invested 40 years of emotional support may be turning into something that I never wanted it to be, and have worries of where it is heading in its future.
However, I believe the people best place to ask the relevant questions to the owners are The Trust - some of whom have at least PM'd me to give some background, rather than the total lack of response from others in this supergroup.
My post was adapted from AFKA's on the s/t thread and in hindsight may not be 100% applicable e.g the use of "opposing", which I overlooked and perhaps "questioning" would have been more appropriate. Apologies.
That said there has been quite a few comments made to the effect that this group are doing this for reasons of ego, politics, self promotion or to regain their dim distant youth! Sorry but I just don't buy that. These are people that care deeply about our club and they deserve a little more respect than to suggest they are doing it for any reason other than what they see as the club's best interests. (Not suggesting you have done this btw)
I agree that there, on the face of it, seems a conflict with the aims and approach of CAST and you, NLA and others have rightly raised this. But as things stand, and unless I've missed something, the Trust itself does not appear to have a problem with this group and its approach. That for now is good enough for me.
I just think that there's been an unhelpful personalisation of the reasons behind this group and that now is the time for everyone to take a breath and see what happens in the next few days.
Personally I am in the "never a frown" camp when it comes to Airman Brown ( the Stranglers for all you young uns). He and his ilk will always have my respect for getting off their arses and doing something when we were in a real crisis. I wish i had got involved in that but i didnt so for me, they have a certain right be heard. But I have to question whether AB is losing the plot a bit....I mean, really, wearing an Operation Ewood T Shirt to a FA cup QF......what was he thinking??
Seriously though, the point about the 80s activism is that the very future of the club was at stake, and there was a clear strategy with a tricky but nevertheless realistic prospect of achieving a particular outcome. If the ghost of the Valley Party is to be revisited it needs to have a similarly clear strategy and to enunciate the outcome it wants to achieve. I can't see what that outcome might be. If talking to owners is the objective then the Trust is surely the way to do it, and until something really bad emerges from such talks, activism seems to me somewhat premature.
The best outcome now would be for this group of 21 to fold into the Trust and take their constructive dialogue there. A united front is so important against sole-ownership - without it we'll never get any representation, especially if "X group of oldies" keeps splintering from "Y group of fans"
As a Trust Member and someone who has purchased every issue of VOTV since it's return, i will echo other posters in requesting more dialogue from why these respected Charlton fans have suddenly decided to be so mobile in their protests when to someone like myself whilst the new system may not be perfect im much happier then under the previous owners minus the loss of Chrissy and Yann maybe.
Its an easy way to discredit the opinions of others addickted
The same way the pro and anti powell sections fought their battle plans
There has been no personal attack on RE or others
I have said I expect it to be in the VOTV as why else would RE not come on here or PM why the questions are not worthy of a response
But to ask for an ST boycott and to announce this groups existance is not the actions of someone shy in coming forward
Sorry NLA I meant to respond earlier. Firstly I'm not out to discredit anyone's view by linking it to the "ax grinding" type of comments which have been cropping up on this thread. Neither you nor Addickted have gone down this route but there, to me anyway, does seem an undercurrent at times.
You and others have put your case well and I agree some clarification from The Group might have put this to bed sooner but it's not coming, so we are effectively going to have to wait until the next VOTV when we can move the debate on if it's required. In the meantime we have to put our trust in The Trust if you see what I'm mean.
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!"
Which is exactly the point of concern, or have you not been reading this thread as you claim? They can't represent me because I have no idea what's going on, which is true I'm sure of most of the rest of us. What is it that's prompted the formation of the group, separate to the Trust? We've asked, but after the initial criticism the G21 has somewhat gone to ground.
As for being constructive, many in this thread have enquired as to what the Trust are doing if there's indeed a threat to the club's identity. That's the incumbent formal mechanism available, yet the G21 didn't consider this a reasonable route to take and don't want to account to the fan base as to their reasons why. Doesn't make me want to rush to their side, frankly.
I'm waiting for the Trust to make their own statement on how they will be responding to all this - after all, it's a little tricky for most of us to make any constructive suggestions when we don't know what the hell is going on.
Sadly I suspect a lot of opposing comment to this group is based on pre-conceived dislike of the individual(s) rather than on the issues at hand.
Strip away anything 'Airman Brown' related. It is nothing to do with whether you have any time for Airman Brown's or Prague's or any of the others previous views, that's almost irrelevent already.
It is about the future direction, identity and soul of the club you support. Whether it is simply the plaything of an individual or for the betterment of another club. If that's for you, and may result in seeing 'better football', no problem.
But please don't snipe at people who are seriously concerned that the club the have invested 10/20/30/40/50 years of emotional support in may be turning into something that they never wanted it to be, and are fearful of where it is heading in its future.
(With apologies to AFKA but your post on the other thread, seemed very apt...)
Let me speak personally. I've long been a supporter of Airman in public and in private even when I thought he was presenting things the wrong way. I've got all the time in the world for Prague Addick, who I like and respect enormously, and a number of others on that list. I respect and am grateful to all of those on the list for their part in our history.
I am not in opposition to them per se, but we have an established supporters' body who actively want to protect the club. For the life of me I cannot understand why this group didn't engage themselves with the Trust to help drive any action that may be needed. I doubt very much Barnie et al would have turned round to them and told them to piss off.
I think they got it badly wrong, and I'm prepared to be vocal about it. Let's be honest here, the risk of them being seen in exactly the terms you describe is all the more likely because of the way in which they've gone about it. Poor judgement on their part, not the respondents who are questioning their actions and motives (because, let's face it, there is some personal attrition among the group that's been endlessly expressed on here - they can't have it both ways).
"If it makes Duchatlet think for a minute more before taking what he knows will be unpopular decisions",
I think we would regret having someone running CAFC who can only make popular decisions. Can't see that RD is any worse a threat to destroying CAFC than the previous owners. The biggest threat is RD taking over the coach's job and that doesn't seem to be happening. I don't swallow the hype about feeder clubs and dumping players. Are we going to tell RD that we don't want any promising talent to be offered to CAFC?
Others obviously think differently, but as the dust settles I think a measured approach that maintains open communications will serve us better. At least RD communicates. An all out guerrilla attack from the popular front will not change any decisions of RD just because he knows they will not be poplar. Do you think RD would have sacked CP if he was frightened of unpopular decisions?
Nor do I think confrontation will influence the shape of decisions in the fans favour any better than existing avenues of communication can, we don't have any power apart from not turning up and buying a ticket.
As has already been said, you can't expect the guy to be wasting time responding to different organisations purporting to represent fans views on the same question just so different groups can issue a different interpretation.
I want plenty of communications and plenty of questions and I will make my own mind up based on what I see and hear and through discussion. I think the Trust can be part of that and it will allow me to judge whether the club's best interests are being served. We can disagree on what we think the outcomes might be, that's part of being a fan, but it doesn't mean I want a group to represent me and assume responsibility for telling the club's management only to take popular decisions. If the group are not telling the club to take popular decisions, what are they doing that is different from any of the other fan representative organisations. RD and JG are not deaf, blind or illiterate, they know our views, they don't need to be patronised.
Dippenhall another normally well reasoned poster who doesn't court controversy or normally antagonise is asking the same questions there must be a point Rick where you respond
I'm in the camp that says this seems a little over the top and seriously undermines the trust . ( I have changed my mind over the last day or two)
I didn't want to see Chris Powell or Yan Kermorgant go but there have been some very good signs coming from out new owner. It's a fact that we tried to sign Conner Whickam and Leon Best on loan and that RD is looking to spend a substantial amount of money on a new pitch and development at Sparrows lane. Those actions alone make me feel RD has got his priorities right.
This whole splinter group has not been thought out properly in my opinion. If the G21 really do feel that something has to be done , do it through the trust or don't do it at all.
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!"
Which is exactly the point of concern, or have you not been reading this thread as you claim? They can't represent me because I have no idea what's going on, which is true I'm sure of most of the rest of us. What is it that's prompted the formation of the group, separate to the Trust? We've asked, but after the initial criticism the G21 has somewhat gone to ground.
As for being constructive, many in this thread have enquired as to what the Trust are doing if there's indeed a threat to the club's identity. That's the incumbent formal mechanism available, yet the G21 didn't consider this a reasonable route to take and don't want to account to the fan base as to their reasons why. Doesn't make me want to rush to their side, frankly.
I'm waiting for the Trust to make their own statement on how they will be responding to all this - after all, it's a little tricky for most of us to make any constructive suggestions when we don't know what the hell is going on.
Why is it a point of concern?
The formation of the group was borne out of a common concern for the club and the uncertainty of the future under RD. I believe the situation is simple: this appears to be a group of people attempting to communicate, independently of though not necessarily against the Trust. It's a group of people who wanted to do... something. Don't think it was anything more or less. Also, the Trust has to follow certain procedures that may restrict it from moving as freely as this new group may intend to (I haven't got a clue as to the intentions of either). This might be why a group of people are choosing to act separately from the Trust.
DISCLAIMER: What I'm about to say may not be entirely accurate regarding the working of CAST, but I don't think it's far wrong.
The Trust, as it is meant to represent all 1,000 of its members, has to move much slower than any informal group. It has to garner fan opinion in some form, and then decide what action to take - otherwise, members can become disillusioned with the Trust and see it solely as a soapbox for the elected representatives to peddle their own agenda. Thus, they have to take the opinions of everyone in the Trust into account. I think Barnie may have mentioned a survey, which is fair enough.
...the G21 didn't consider this [Going through the Trust] a reasonable route to take and don't want to account to the fan base as to their reasons why.
I think the G21 rushed things, as emotions would be running high after the sacking of an incredibly popular manager. I also don't think they have a reasonable answer to this.
Comments
Good luck to all the folks putting in hours of their spare time for the betterment of the club.
Strip away anything 'Airman Brown' related. It is nothing to do with whether you have any time for Airman Brown's or Prague's or any of the others previous views, that's almost irrelevent already.
It is about the future direction, identity and soul of the club you support. Whether it is simply the plaything of an individual or for the betterment of another club. If that's for you, and may result in seeing 'better football', no problem.
But please don't snipe at people who are seriously concerned that the club the have invested 10/20/30/40/50 years of emotional support in may be turning into something that they never wanted it to be, and are fearful of where it is heading in its future.
(With apologies to AFKA but your post on the other thread, seemed very apt...)
For example, G21 demand a meeting and it is revealed that a meeting is planned, so why can the G21 questions be raised through this meeting, subject to the terms of reference agreed with the club & date.
People all so shouldn't just take for gospel what this group thinks either just because of their past they should do so because of all the package they bring to the table
The main questions on here support the need for these questions to be asked but want to understand why the trusts make up doesn't allow it
Seeing as we pay into the trust if it doesn't work and this group know a better way then tell people and get the trust working for us in the correct way
And just tell people why RD is more dangerous than the people who we were told over and over again in the last 24 months were eroding our Identity and killing our club
Why not appear then and if they had I would suggest the support for them would be in the 80s not the low 30s as it seems now
The end result is important but why should RD do it instantly
According to him RM is the man of the people and the link to our history
Secondly, there are some serious issues and questions being raised in this thread - but you seem to see them as 'opposing comments'. Unless the justified questions are answered by the G21, how can I oppose them? Please don't make assumptions about me or continue to snipe at the questions I've raised as I'm also seriously concerned that the club I have invested 40 years of emotional support may be turning into something that I never wanted it to be, and have worries of where it is heading in its future.
However, I believe the people best place to ask the relevant questions to the owners are The Trust - some of whom have at least PM'd me to give some background, rather than the total lack of response from others in this supergroup.
The same way the pro and anti powell sections fought their battle plans
There has been no personal attack on RE or others
I have said I expect it to be in the VOTV as why else would RE not come on here or PM why the questions are not worthy of a response
But to ask for an ST boycott and to announce this groups existance is not the actions of someone shy in coming forward
To be an umbrella group
They do not wish to work through the trust or any other group, they intend to take the lead. For me this is very damaging to the future of the trust which is elected whether people individually are members and voted or not.
This group has appointed itself as the supreme body, who the trust and others can feed in to but not direct. In other words the views of the few outweigh the views of the many.
Not on in my view.
If this meeting in April happens and everyone says they do not want this group to contact the board for this meeting but for the trust to do it would they listen?
That question MUST be answered.
To be an umbrella group
They do not wish to work through the trust or any other group, they intend to take the lead. For me this is very damaging to the future of the trust which is elected whether people individually are members and voted or not.
This group has appointed itself as the supreme body, who the trust and others can feed in to but not direct. In other words the views of the few outweigh the views of the many.
Not on in my view.
If this meeting in April happens and everyone says they do not want this group to contact the board for this meeting but for the trust to do it would they listen?
That question MUST be answered.
'Bit early for that, I think. Sure more details will follow.'
I always buy VOTV but find it ridiculous if this is the case.
What about open and free communication? Hopefully this is wrong and today we will receive some answers to the questions asked on this thread.
That said there has been quite a few comments made to the effect that this group are doing this for reasons of ego, politics, self promotion or to regain their dim distant youth! Sorry but I just don't buy that. These are people that care deeply about our club and they deserve a little more respect than to suggest they are doing it for any reason other than what they see as the club's best interests. (Not suggesting you have done this btw)
I agree that there, on the face of it, seems a conflict with the aims and approach of CAST and you, NLA and others have rightly raised this. But as things stand, and unless I've missed something, the Trust itself does not appear to have a problem with this group and its approach. That for now is good enough for me.
I just think that there's been an unhelpful personalisation of the reasons behind this group and that now is the time for everyone to take a breath and see what happens in the next few days.
Personally I am in the "never a frown" camp when it comes to Airman Brown ( the Stranglers for all you young uns). He and his ilk will always have my respect for getting off their arses and doing something when we were in a real crisis. I wish i had got involved in that but i didnt so for me, they have a certain right be heard. But I have to question whether AB is losing the plot a bit....I mean, really, wearing an Operation Ewood T Shirt to a FA cup QF......what was he thinking??
Seriously though, the point about the 80s activism is that the very future of the club was at stake, and there was a clear strategy with a tricky but nevertheless realistic prospect of achieving a particular outcome. If the ghost of the Valley Party is to be revisited it needs to have a similarly clear strategy and to enunciate the outcome it wants to achieve. I can't see what that outcome might be. If talking to owners is the objective then the Trust is surely the way to do it, and until something really bad emerges from such talks, activism seems to me somewhat premature.
You and others have put your case well and I agree some clarification from The Group might have put this to bed sooner but it's not coming, so we are effectively going to have to wait until the next VOTV when we can move the debate on if it's required. In the meantime we have to put our trust in The Trust if you see what I'm mean.
As for being constructive, many in this thread have enquired as to what the Trust are doing if there's indeed a threat to the club's identity. That's the incumbent formal mechanism available, yet the G21 didn't consider this a reasonable route to take and don't want to account to the fan base as to their reasons why. Doesn't make me want to rush to their side, frankly.
I'm waiting for the Trust to make their own statement on how they will be responding to all this - after all, it's a little tricky for most of us to make any constructive suggestions when we don't know what the hell is going on.
I am not in opposition to them per se, but we have an established supporters' body who actively want to protect the club. For the life of me I cannot understand why this group didn't engage themselves with the Trust to help drive any action that may be needed. I doubt very much Barnie et al would have turned round to them and told them to piss off.
I think they got it badly wrong, and I'm prepared to be vocal about it. Let's be honest here, the risk of them being seen in exactly the terms you describe is all the more likely because of the way in which they've gone about it. Poor judgement on their part, not the respondents who are questioning their actions and motives (because, let's face it, there is some personal attrition among the group that's been endlessly expressed on here - they can't have it both ways).
I think we would regret having someone running CAFC who can only make popular decisions. Can't see that RD is any worse a threat to destroying CAFC than the previous owners. The biggest threat is RD taking over the coach's job and that doesn't seem to be happening. I don't swallow the hype about feeder clubs and dumping players. Are we going to tell RD that we don't want any promising talent to be offered to CAFC?
Others obviously think differently, but as the dust settles I think a measured approach that maintains open communications will serve us better. At least RD communicates. An all out guerrilla attack from the popular front will not change any decisions of RD just because he knows they will not be poplar. Do you think RD would have sacked CP if he was frightened of unpopular decisions?
Nor do I think confrontation will influence the shape of decisions in the fans favour any better than existing avenues of communication can, we don't have any power apart from not turning up and buying a ticket.
As has already been said, you can't expect the guy to be wasting time responding to different organisations purporting to represent fans views on the same question just so different groups can issue a different interpretation.
I want plenty of communications and plenty of questions and I will make my own mind up based on what I see and hear and through discussion. I think the Trust can be part of that and it will allow me to judge whether the club's best interests are being served. We can disagree on what we think the outcomes might be, that's part of being a fan, but it doesn't mean I want a group to represent me and assume responsibility for telling the club's management only to take popular decisions. If the group are not telling the club to take popular decisions, what are they doing that is different from any of the other fan representative organisations. RD and JG are not deaf, blind or illiterate, they know our views, they don't need to be patronised.
I didn't want to see Chris Powell or Yan Kermorgant go but there have been some very good signs coming from out new owner.
It's a fact that we tried to sign Conner Whickam and Leon Best on loan and that RD is looking to spend a substantial amount of money on a new pitch and development at Sparrows lane.
Those actions alone make me feel RD has got his priorities right.
This whole splinter group has not been thought out properly in my opinion.
If the G21 really do feel that something has to be done , do it through the trust or don't do it at all.
The formation of the group was borne out of a common concern for the club and the uncertainty of the future under RD. I believe the situation is simple: this appears to be a group of people attempting to communicate, independently of though not necessarily against the Trust. It's a group of people who wanted to do... something. Don't think it was anything more or less. Also, the Trust has to follow certain procedures that may restrict it from moving as freely as this new group may intend to (I haven't got a clue as to the intentions of either). This might be why a group of people are choosing to act separately from the Trust.
DISCLAIMER: What I'm about to say may not be entirely accurate regarding the working of CAST, but I don't think it's far wrong.
The Trust, as it is meant to represent all 1,000 of its members, has to move much slower than any informal group. It has to garner fan opinion in some form, and then decide what action to take - otherwise, members can become disillusioned with the Trust and see it solely as a soapbox for the elected representatives to peddle their own agenda. Thus, they have to take the opinions of everyone in the Trust into account. I think Barnie may have mentioned a survey, which is fair enough. I think the G21 rushed things, as emotions would be running high after the sacking of an incredibly popular manager. I also don't think they have a reasonable answer to this.