I understand that point paddy and out of all the reasons for this group to exist that point makes sense as to why not the trust route
What though has come to light that all fans wouldn't want action on that these guys know that the trust wouldn't be able to get support for within a matter of days
Its too hidden too contrived to be anything other than about not wishing to be held accountable by anyone and its that bit I don't understand
The valley party worked because of the broad spectrum of skills in it and idont doubt that there was in house bickering and disagreements
But none that would damage the support for the cause
This call to arms on ST boycott the announcement of the existance of this group and now the deathly silence that now exists is damaging to both G21 and that of the trust
I have enormous respect for those I know among the 21, and don't doubt for a moment their motives, but with the still young Trust apparently pursuing the same interests, it does seem a shame not to make it the umbrella under which all the most dedicated and knowledgeable campaigners gather unless there's a good reason that it will hinder their ambition. Surely we're better off together as long as the bigger body never becomes lethargic, which would hopefully be unlikely at such an early stage. Hopefully those meeting didn't really intend G21 to operate as a splinter group?
Well i'm a Trust member, yet i don't see any problem with this at the moment.
Don't really understand why most people see the need to rush to make instant judgements, either supportive or against, without knowing more. I'm prepared to wait and see where this is going before making a judgement one way or another, and certainly don't see anything being 'damaged'.
Whether there is something there worthing pursuing / making a scene about or not, well time will tell. Certain people seem prepared to put their head above the parapet and put their name and reputations on line for something. I just want what is best for my club, so i'm certainly not going to knock them for that. As many of those have proven in their different instances to be good for Charlton in the past, i'm prepared to give them slack at this stage to see where they head with it, but i'm not going to just back 'blindly'.
I have nothing against RD, and want his time with us to be a huge success. Certainly not anti-him / his companies approach in any way at the moment, but would be lying if i didn't say i had concerns. The network aspect, where Charlton fit in, what are the key aims and ambitions are for the club etc make me very uneasy. The transfer dealings so far have not impressed me. The (unproven) suggestions of team selection interference unnerve me.
I can't help that, and hope in time my worries were completely ill-placed. I'm staggered that not everyone else holds those same concerns, but each to their own.
If this lot get to probe more deeper into it, uncover anything that may further question things that may impact the future / fabric of the club, then i will be grateful to them. If it leads to RD / KM further clarifying in more detail the strategy and how Charlton fits into it, or RD clarifiying his committment to Charlton and its stance and ambition as an individual club, then i'll be equally grateful.
If there is nothing there, and after the next stage this goes nowhere, then nothing has been lost, other than a few people may have dented their credibility a little.
Why is this outside the Trust framework? I'm sure there are a variety of reasons; personal, policy, politically and structral wise, and most probably aren't best placed debating on a public forum without it getting much much messier. If it was inside the Trust framework, then the level of politics / disagreement involved given the split of opinions would be completely unworkable.
Bottom line, as a bystander i don't really care.
Timing in hindsight was poor as it appeared to be completely linked to the Powell decision, which immediately taps into and associates itself to another ongoing supporter split. Personally think a bit of ground work could have been done and then wait and see where we are likely to be next season before going to the next stage, but that's just my opinion with the benefit of hindsight. Its there now to be shot at, but I just think people should hold fire a little until more emerges.
Ps. If more only emerges through the pages of VOTV, then that would be a big no no imo as that then would bring a commercial slant into it, and muddy the waters even more.
I understand that point paddy and out of all the reasons for this group to exist that point makes sense as to why not the trust route
What though has come to light that all fans wouldn't want action on that these guys know that the trust wouldn't be able to get support for within a matter of days
Its too hidden too contrived to be anything other than about not wishing to be held accountable by anyone and its that bit I don't understand
The valley party worked because of the broad spectrum of skills in it and idont doubt that there was in house bickering and disagreements
But none that would damage the support for the cause
This call to arms on ST boycott the announcement of the existance of this group and now the deathly silence that now exists is damaging to both G21 and that of the trust
Cheers NLA.
It's possible they fear being held accountable. Alternatively - and this is more likely IMO - they don't want to be held accountable because they are unsure how much of the fan base they represent. Cut them a little slack - they've met once, and are less than a week old.
I'm not old enough to remember the Valley Party unfortunately (though I have some campaign posters on my bedroom wall, they're pretty nifty), but you're probably right. There's always in-house discord of some form usually. However, in the Internet Age, I think massive threads like this can and will damage support for a united cause. The volume of information we all have on each other via CL posts or what have you is incredible and can be used as a dangerous weapon at times.
I don't think the silence damages the Trust. They have to go through more official channels before anything can be said, and as the pre-eminent voice for the fans, they have to wait to poll opinion. Could you elaborate on why you think it does damage them?
'Don't really understand why most people see the need to rush to make instant judgements, either supportive or against, without knowing more. I'm prepared to wait and see where this is going before making a judgement one way or another'
but, for me, this is exactly what the G21 are doing themselves. They have already said that if they can't enagage RD/KM in constructive dialogue they will escalate matters. Why? What do they know that we don't? If they don't know anything then why the need to escalate matters? Just because the owner won't talk to them? If they do know something then surely they are duty bound to inform all supporters, and not via the latest issue of VOTV either. And why the radio silence?
Because basically to the intellectually challenged (like myself) the G21, Avengers Assembled, Fellowship of the Club like to think they are better supporters than the majority of fans which is fine as in every walk of life these people exist, good luck to them i say.
And that for me is the whole crux of the matter large its not been criticised because it was discovered by chance the verbal coms from G21 has been very much an act of offensive behaviour the ST one a huge display of get rd the table or else
I don't for one min think that RD has established his wealth by bending to that pressure
Dan your right on timing but not just the powell bit
Time the ST boycott the creation of G21 and the attempt to get RD to the table in line with something concrete that challenges RD's motives do that and I am front line in wanting to know wtf is being played with our club
After all we knew how much we owed the milkman over the last few months mainly due to info from persons in that group
If it appears in the votv before it appears anywhere else then its all for the wrong reasons and that's before votv goes to print not highlighting what's in it
Paddy I don't want to cut them slack I want to support them and move whatever needs to be done on
But I want to know why and what and I just can't understand why we needed to know of this group prior to knowing what changed
Do it in a shroud of secrecy if needed
But it is damaging to the trust you can tell they don't all agree themselves and although its healthy having differing opinions its also damaging if some feel that it weakens the trust and seeing as the biggest consenses on this thread alone feels its detrimental and I personally feel damaging to the trust then in its essence the existance and way that the PR on this group has come out has damaged the trust
G21 (and, even worse, talk of boycotting ST purchases) is entirely premature IMO. It seems to me that people are seeing ghosts of former owners and anticipating (so far as I can see without good cause, at least at the moment) decisions as detrimental to the identity of the Club as those of the mid 80s. All of that would not be so bad if it were not for the fact that, at great effort on the part of a number of people of equally good intention (including some of the "old guard"), a promising and growing supporters' body (CAST) has been established to represent supporters' interests to the new owner. One voice would be very much preferential at this stage. If the balloon goes up and there are objectionable plans announced, then for sure, man the barricades.
Because basically to the intellectually challenged (like myself) the G21, Avengers Assembled, Fellowship of the Club like to think they are better supporters than the majority of fans which is fine as in every walk of life these people exist, good luck to them i say.
I think thats a little unfair. Personally i don't have the time/intellect/effort to do something like this, but without these type of supporters, it would have been extremely likely that 30 years ago would have seen the end of CAFC as a professional competitive club.
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.
Time the ST boycott the creation of G21 and the attempt to get RD to the table in line with something concrete that challenges RD's motives do that and I am front line in wanting to know wtf is being played with our club
If it appears in the votv before it appears anywhere else then its all for the wrong reasons and that's before votv goes to print not highlighting what's in it
I understand that point paddy and out of all the reasons for this group to exist that point makes sense as to why not the trust route
What though has come to light that all fans wouldn't want action on that these guys know that the trust wouldn't be able to get support for within a matter of days
Its too hidden too contrived to be anything other than about not wishing to be held accountable by anyone and its that bit I don't understand
The valley party worked because of the broad spectrum of skills in it and idont doubt that there was in house bickering and disagreements
But none that would damage the support for the cause
This call to arms on ST boycott the announcement of the existance of this group and now the deathly silence that now exists is damaging to both G21 and that of the trust
Cheers NLA.
It's possible they fear being held accountable. Alternatively - and this is more likely IMO - they don't want to be held accountable because they are unsure how much of the fan base they represent. Cut them a little slack - they've met once, and are less than a week old.
I'm not old enough to remember the Valley Party unfortunately (though I have some campaign posters on my bedroom wall, they're pretty nifty), but you're probably right. There's always in-house discord of some form usually. However, in the Internet Age, I think massive threads like this can and will damage support for a united cause. The volume of information we all have on each other via CL posts or what have you is incredible and can be used as a dangerous weapon at times.
So the nature of massive threads like this is that OP posts something that provokes a response. You're busy blaming the respondents rather than the catalyst. It could have been controlled had it been (at least) presented as being something the Trust were busy smoking out, rather than what reads like a call to arms from an independent group set up in secret like a war committee based on what may or may not be a dodgy dossier.
I don't think the silence damages the Trust. They have to go through more official channels before anything can be said, and as the pre-eminent voice for the fans, they have to wait to poll opinion. Could you elaborate on why you think it does damage them?
Make you right on this one though Paddy. Better to get their next communication right rather than rapid.
Because basically to the intellectually challenged (like myself) the G21, Avengers Assembled, Fellowship of the Club like to think they are better supporters than the majority of fans which is fine as in every walk of life these people exist, good luck to them i say.
I think thats a little unfair. Personally i don't have the time/intellect/effort to do something like this, but without these type of supporters, it would have been extremely likely that 30 years ago would have seen the end of CAFC as a professional competitive club.
Fair point Gary but we knew exactly where we stood back then so could someone enlighten me what Roland has done or will do or is it a closed book for a chosen few. As far as i can see at the moment all he has done was to sack Powell which if you ask me was the correct decision. Why also did these fans not want to bring TJ Slater etc to the table as Roland has done no worse than them at present, just seems to be a hidden agenda with this takeover from certain fans and if they do know any different tell us so we can ALL get behind the movement.
I understand that point paddy and out of all the reasons for this group to exist that point makes sense as to why not the trust route
What though has come to light that all fans wouldn't want action on that these guys know that the trust wouldn't be able to get support for within a matter of days
Its too hidden too contrived to be anything other than about not wishing to be held accountable by anyone and its that bit I don't understand
The valley party worked because of the broad spectrum of skills in it and idont doubt that there was in house bickering and disagreements
But none that would damage the support for the cause
This call to arms on ST boycott the announcement of the existance of this group and now the deathly silence that now exists is damaging to both G21 and that of the trust
Cheers NLA.
It's possible they fear being held accountable. Alternatively - and this is more likely IMO - they don't want to be held accountable because they are unsure how much of the fan base they represent. Cut them a little slack - they've met once, and are less than a week old.
I'm not old enough to remember the Valley Party unfortunately (though I have some campaign posters on my bedroom wall, they're pretty nifty), but you're probably right. There's always in-house discord of some form usually. However, in the Internet Age, I think massive threads like this can and will damage support for a united cause. The volume of information we all have on each other via CL posts or what have you is incredible and can be used as a dangerous weapon at times.
So the nature of massive threads like this is that OP posts something that provokes a response. You're busy blaming the respondents rather than the catalyst. It could have been controlled had it been (at least) presented as being something the Trust were busy smoking out, rather than what reads like a call to arms from an independent group set up in secret like a war committee based on what may or may not be a dodgy dossier.
I don't think the silence damages the Trust. They have to go through more official channels before anything can be said, and as the pre-eminent voice for the fans, they have to wait to poll opinion. Could you elaborate on why you think it does damage them?
Make you right on this one though Paddy. Better to get their next communication right rather than rapid.
Something I've raised with AFKA (he's not got back to me yet) is why we have threads like this causing controversy. I'd like to see an up and down vote system in place for thread titles: vote up for relevance and intrigue, down if it's not really worthy of discussion. Don't know if you're familiar with Reddit, but their post and page ranking algorithm has it near enough spot on. (Wrote a massive essay on it basically.) I think if you don't like the catalyst - ignore it.
It was indeed rushed. I've not disagreed with that, nor am I going to. I don't think the Trust as a whole is affiliated with this group so I'm unsure as to why you're asking for them to control the actions of others...
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 basically to the intellectually challenged (like myself) the G21, Avengers Assembled, Fellowship of the Club like to think they are better supporters than the majority of fans which is fine as in every walk of life these people exist, good luck to them i say.
I think thats a little unfair. Personally i don't have the time/intellect/effort to do something like this, but without these type of supporters, it would have been extremely likely that 30 years ago would have seen the end of CAFC as a professional competitive club.
Fair point Gary but we knew exactly where we stood back then so could someone enlighten me what Roland has done or will do or is it a closed book for a chosen few. As far as i can see at the moment all he has done was to sack Powell which if you ask me was the correct decision. Why also did these fans not want to bring TJ Slater etc to the table as Roland has done no worse than them at present, just seems to be a hidden agenda with this takeover from certain fans and if they do know any different tell us so we can ALL get behind the movement.
Mate, i agree completely. I just didn't agree with the 'think they are better supporters' part thats all.
Because basically to the intellectually challenged (like myself) the G21, Avengers Assembled, Fellowship of the Club like to think they are better supporters than the majority of fans which is fine as in every walk of life these people exist, good luck to them i say.
I think thats a little unfair. Personally i don't have the time/intellect/effort to do something like this, but without these type of supporters, it would have been extremely likely that 30 years ago would have seen the end of CAFC as a professional competitive club.
Fair point Gary but we knew exactly where we stood back then so could someone enlighten me what Roland has done or will do or is it a closed book for a chosen few. As far as i can see at the moment all he has done was to sack Powell which if you ask me was the correct decision. Why also did these fans not want to bring TJ Slater etc to the table as Roland has done no worse than them at present, just seems to be a hidden agenda with this takeover from certain fans and if they do know any different tell us so we can ALL get behind the movement.
Mate, i agree completely. I just didn't agree with the 'think they are better supporters' part thats all.
Im fully behind RD.
probably a tad harsh but they are making themselves come across as more important than others ( ie the trust ) which is very poor if you ask me - but i know nothing anyway, i should be working!
The debate on this matter has been thought-provoking and interesting. In the light of the way in which the general consensus seems to have moved away somewhat from the initial support shown for the G21, it would be interesting to know how many of the "likes" for the OP would now prefer to "unlike".
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 think there has been a bit of a "trigger response" after CP s sacking ...However any meaningful dialogue with RD/KM has got to be good for all ...My only concern is that there should only be one fans representative body and we seem to have a few at the moment . If such dialogue does happen I wouldnt expect too much and if you dont get too much back then i dont think that should be filtered back to the fans as a negative .RD owns the Club now ...incidentally has he published anything like a mission statement at SL or previous businesses? He is a successful businessman so i assume he does understand the importance of customers/fans ... (maybe not)
I understand that point paddy and out of all the reasons for this group to exist that point makes sense as to why not the trust route
What though has come to light that all fans wouldn't want action on that these guys know that the trust wouldn't be able to get support for within a matter of days
Its too hidden too contrived to be anything other than about not wishing to be held accountable by anyone and its that bit I don't understand
The valley party worked because of the broad spectrum of skills in it and idont doubt that there was in house bickering and disagreements
But none that would damage the support for the cause
This call to arms on ST boycott the announcement of the existance of this group and now the deathly silence that now exists is damaging to both G21 and that of the trust
Cheers NLA.
It's possible they fear being held accountable. Alternatively - and this is more likely IMO - they don't want to be held accountable because they are unsure how much of the fan base they represent. Cut them a little slack - they've met once, and are less than a week old.
I'm not old enough to remember the Valley Party unfortunately (though I have some campaign posters on my bedroom wall, they're pretty nifty), but you're probably right. There's always in-house discord of some form usually. However, in the Internet Age, I think massive threads like this can and will damage support for a united cause. The volume of information we all have on each other via CL posts or what have you is incredible and can be used as a dangerous weapon at times.
So the nature of massive threads like this is that OP posts something that provokes a response. You're busy blaming the respondents rather than the catalyst. It could have been controlled had it been (at least) presented as being something the Trust were busy smoking out, rather than what reads like a call to arms from an independent group set up in secret like a war committee based on what may or may not be a dodgy dossier.
I don't think the silence damages the Trust. They have to go through more official channels before anything can be said, and as the pre-eminent voice for the fans, they have to wait to poll opinion. Could you elaborate on why you think it does damage them?
Make you right on this one though Paddy. Better to get their next communication right rather than rapid.
Something I've raised with AFKA (he's not got back to me yet) is why we have threads like this causing controversy. I'd like to see an up and down vote system in place for thread titles: vote up for relevance and intrigue, down if it's not really worthy of discussion. Don't know if you're familiar with Reddit, but their post and page ranking algorithm has it near enough spot on. (Wrote a massive essay on it basically.) I think if you don't like the catalyst - ignore it.
It was indeed rushed. I've not disagreed with that, nor am I going to. I don't think the Trust as a whole is affiliated with this group so I'm unsure as to why you're asking for them to control the actions of others...
It's a discussion forum. Things that get posted get discussed. What part of that are you struggling with? Keep blaming the forum, not the guys who started it all.
I think there has been a bit of a "trigger response" after CP s sacking ...However any meaningful dialogue with RD/KM has got to be good for all ...My only concern is that there should only be one fans representative body and we seem to have a few at the moment . If such dialogue does happen I wouldnt expect too much and if you dont get too much back then i dont think that should be filtered back to the fans as a negative .RD owns the Club now ...incidentally has he published anything like a mission statement at SL or previous businesses? He is a successful businessman so i assume he does understand the importance of customers/fans ... (maybe not)
I certainly agree that the sacking of Chris Powell has caused a trigger response.
If you think about the mood of the fans going up to Sheffield United, all that hope and positive anticipation, and then the massive disappointment. That does not put people in a good mood to start with.
Add to that the rumours about what transpired pre match as 5,300 Addicks assembled in Sheffield. Added to that the worry about the SL bloke saying that SL players come to Charlton to get experience. Add to that the dismissal of Chris Powell, and the unknown Jose Riga, along with Karel Fraeye (who also says that SL are the number one club). And the worry/hope about results thereafter. Add to that a sense that the finances simply don't seen to stack up as a break even business, and will need a lot of free money in to sustain Charlton, does that money ever have to be paid back, and when, and how? Add to that the sense that we are only one chemical in a hard to understand football/business experiment, but in terms of player movement thus far we don't seem to be benefiting enough to face the rest of the season, and we wonder if that is a priority concern for Roland. Add to that the Powell free season ticket renewal forms landing on our mats (mostly ;-)).
Of course Chris Powell's sacking collected all these worries and fears together. Of course it did, he was a respected and popular man.
Is it any wonder that in the immediate context of last Tuesday and Wednesday these issues of concern rush to the forefront of a lot of peoples thinking? In the sense of frustration enough people wanted to do something straight away, maybe to prove that within the Charlton support there are those who respond to events rapidly. Indeed many individual people had already written in to the club in the 36 hours or so between Powell's sacking and the pre-Huddersfield meeting.
It may be a clumsy way of reacting by the supporters group, there remains a huge question regarding the nature of synergy with the trust, but the context was about a lot of the worries I have mentioned above. They may be trivial concerns to some, but are a worry to others, hence there was a sense of urgency and immediacy, and of course if one acts in haste, one is obliged to reflect at leisure.
I still believe people acted because they care, and it may be the defeat at Sheffield was an even bigger trigger than the change of manager.
Well i'm a Trust member, yet i don't see any problem with this at the moment.
Don't really understand why most people see the need to rush to make instant judgements, either supportive or against, without knowing more. I'm prepared to wait and see where this is going before making a judgement one way or another, and certainly don't see anything being 'damaged'.
Whether there is something there worthing pursuing / making a scene about or not, well time will tell. Certain people seem prepared to put their head above the parapet and put their name and reputations on line for something. I just want what is best for my club, so i'm certainly not going to knock them for that. As many of those have proven in their different instances to be good for Charlton in the past, i'm prepared to give them slack at this stage to see where they head with it, but i'm not going to just back 'blindly'.
I have nothing against RD, and want his time with us to be a huge success. Certainly not anti-him / his companies approach in any way at the moment, but would be lying if i didn't say i had concerns. The network aspect, where Charlton fit in, what are the key aims and ambitions are for the club etc make me very uneasy. The transfer dealings so far have not impressed me. The (unproven) suggestions of team selection interference unnerve me.
I can't help that, and hope in time my worries were completely ill-placed. I'm staggered that not everyone else holds those same concerns, but each to their own.
If this lot get to probe more deeper into it, uncover anything that may further question things that may impact the future / fabric of the club, then i will be grateful to them. If it leads to RD / KM further clarifying in more detail the strategy and how Charlton fits into it, or RD clarifiying his committment to Charlton and its stance and ambition as an individual club, then i'll be equally grateful.
If there is nothing there, and after the next stage this goes nowhere, then nothing has been lost, other than a few people may have dented their credibility a little.
Why is this outside the Trust framework? I'm sure there are a variety of reasons; personal, policy, politically and structral wise, and most probably aren't best placed debating on a public forum without it getting much much messier. If it was inside the Trust framework, then the level of politics / disagreement involved given the split of opinions would be completely unworkable.
Bottom line, as a bystander i don't really care.
Timing in hindsight was poor as it appeared to be completely linked to the Powell decision, which immediately taps into and associates itself to another ongoing supporter split. Personally think a bit of ground work could have been done and then wait and see where we are likely to be next season before going to the next stage, but that's just my opinion with the benefit of hindsight. Its there now to be shot at, but I just think people should hold fire a little until more emerges.
Ps. If more only emerges through the pages of VOTV, then that would be a big no no imo as that then would bring a commercial slant into it, and muddy the waters even more.
Nail on head for me.
I. I don't think the aims of the group are a problem 2. Reasoned approach to achieve a reasonable dialogue is fine 3. RDs empire is unusual if not totally unique so a better understanding of the direction of travel and the medium and long term goals for our club assuming they involve investment on and off the pitch is a good story not a bad story so why not share that if that is the case? 4. I do not and neither should any of us expect a forensic expose of RDs plans - just an idea of where they see the club in 5 years and what they intend to do to get us there.
I entirely understand the arguments about the Trust being the vehicle for this dialogue. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. My guess is that consitutionally it is less free to do this than a loose gathering of supporters. In the end do I care? No unless somebody can convince me that the intervention of those who in the past have made a difference is actually counter-productive. I just don't see it.
When people put their heads above the parapet, some will take a shot at them. T'was ever thus. I broadly welcome the initative. Like AFKA I sincerely trust, as a subscriber to VOTV, we do not have to wait for things to drip drip out on there. If I judge AB correctly, I very much doubt it will happen that way.
I understand that point paddy and out of all the reasons for this group to exist that point makes sense as to why not the trust route
What though has come to light that all fans wouldn't want action on that these guys know that the trust wouldn't be able to get support for within a matter of days
Its too hidden too contrived to be anything other than about not wishing to be held accountable by anyone and its that bit I don't understand
The valley party worked because of the broad spectrum of skills in it and idont doubt that there was in house bickering and disagreements
But none that would damage the support for the cause
This call to arms on ST boycott the announcement of the existance of this group and now the deathly silence that now exists is damaging to both G21 and that of the trust
Cheers NLA.
It's possible they fear being held accountable. Alternatively - and this is more likely IMO - they don't want to be held accountable because they are unsure how much of the fan base they represent. Cut them a little slack - they've met once, and are less than a week old.
I'm not old enough to remember the Valley Party unfortunately (though I have some campaign posters on my bedroom wall, they're pretty nifty), but you're probably right. There's always in-house discord of some form usually. However, in the Internet Age, I think massive threads like this can and will damage support for a united cause. The volume of information we all have on each other via CL posts or what have you is incredible and can be used as a dangerous weapon at times.
So the nature of massive threads like this is that OP posts something that provokes a response. You're busy blaming the respondents rather than the catalyst. It could have been controlled had it been (at least) presented as being something the Trust were busy smoking out, rather than what reads like a call to arms from an independent group set up in secret like a war committee based on what may or may not be a dodgy dossier.
I don't think the silence damages the Trust. They have to go through more official channels before anything can be said, and as the pre-eminent voice for the fans, they have to wait to poll opinion. Could you elaborate on why you think it does damage them?
Make you right on this one though Paddy. Better to get their next communication right rather than rapid.
Something I've raised with AFKA (he's not got back to me yet) is why we have threads like this causing controversy. I'd like to see an up and down vote system in place for thread titles: vote up for relevance and intrigue, down if it's not really worthy of discussion. Don't know if you're familiar with Reddit, but their post and page ranking algorithm has it near enough spot on. (Wrote a massive essay on it basically.) I think if you don't like the catalyst - ignore it.
It was indeed rushed. I've not disagreed with that, nor am I going to. I don't think the Trust as a whole is affiliated with this group so I'm unsure as to why you're asking for them to control the actions of others...
It's a discussion forum. Things that get posted get discussed. What part of that are you struggling with? Keep blaming the forum, not the guys who started it all.
Sorting threads by latest comment, while practical and easy, leads to inflammatory discussions at the top, where lots of bickering is going on. I AM blaming aspects of the forum. I also don't think anyone should really have responded to this post in the first place, if they didn't agree with it. If we had a voting system - we down vote and move on.
Comments
What though has come to light that all fans wouldn't want action on that these guys know that the trust wouldn't be able to get support for within a matter of days
Its too hidden too contrived to be anything other than about not wishing to be held accountable by anyone and its that bit I don't understand
The valley party worked because of the broad spectrum of skills in it and idont doubt that there was in house bickering and disagreements
But none that would damage the support for the cause
This call to arms on ST boycott the announcement of the existance of this group and now the deathly silence that now exists is damaging to both G21 and that of the trust
Don't really understand why most people see the need to rush to make instant judgements, either supportive or against, without knowing more. I'm prepared to wait and see where this is going before making a judgement one way or another, and certainly don't see anything being 'damaged'.
Whether there is something there worthing pursuing / making a scene about or not, well time will tell. Certain people seem prepared to put their head above the parapet and put their name and reputations on line for something. I just want what is best for my club, so i'm certainly not going to knock them for that. As many of those have proven in their different instances to be good for Charlton in the past, i'm prepared to give them slack at this stage to see where they head with it, but i'm not going to just back 'blindly'.
I have nothing against RD, and want his time with us to be a huge success. Certainly not anti-him / his companies approach in any way at the moment, but would be lying if i didn't say i had concerns. The network aspect, where Charlton fit in, what are the key aims and ambitions are for the club etc make me very uneasy. The transfer dealings so far have not impressed me. The (unproven) suggestions of team selection interference unnerve me.
I can't help that, and hope in time my worries were completely ill-placed. I'm staggered that not everyone else holds those same concerns, but each to their own.
If this lot get to probe more deeper into it, uncover anything that may further question things that may impact the future / fabric of the club, then i will be grateful to them. If it leads to RD / KM further clarifying in more detail the strategy and how Charlton fits into it, or RD clarifiying his committment to Charlton and its stance and ambition as an individual club, then i'll be equally grateful.
If there is nothing there, and after the next stage this goes nowhere, then nothing has been lost, other than a few people may have dented their credibility a little.
Why is this outside the Trust framework? I'm sure there are a variety of reasons; personal, policy, politically and structral wise, and most probably aren't best placed debating on a public forum without it getting much much messier. If it was inside the Trust framework, then the level of politics / disagreement involved given the split of opinions would be completely unworkable.
Bottom line, as a bystander i don't really care.
Timing in hindsight was poor as it appeared to be completely linked to the Powell decision, which immediately taps into and associates itself to another ongoing supporter split. Personally think a bit of ground work could have been done and then wait and see where we are likely to be next season before going to the next stage, but that's just my opinion with the benefit of hindsight. Its there now to be shot at, but I just think people should hold fire a little until more emerges.
Ps. If more only emerges through the pages of VOTV, then that would be a big no no imo as that then would bring a commercial slant into it, and muddy the waters even more.
It's possible they fear being held accountable. Alternatively - and this is more likely IMO - they don't want to be held accountable because they are unsure how much of the fan base they represent. Cut them a little slack - they've met once, and are less than a week old.
I'm not old enough to remember the Valley Party unfortunately (though I have some campaign posters on my bedroom wall, they're pretty nifty), but you're probably right. There's always in-house discord of some form usually. However, in the Internet Age, I think massive threads like this can and will damage support for a united cause. The volume of information we all have on each other via CL posts or what have you is incredible and can be used as a dangerous weapon at times.
I don't think the silence damages the Trust. They have to go through more official channels before anything can be said, and as the pre-eminent voice for the fans, they have to wait to poll opinion. Could you elaborate on why you think it does damage them?
'Don't really understand why most people see the need to rush to make instant judgements, either supportive or against, without knowing more. I'm prepared to wait and see where this is going before making a judgement one way or another'
but, for me, this is exactly what the G21 are doing themselves. They have already said that if they can't enagage RD/KM in constructive dialogue they will escalate matters. Why? What do they know that we don't? If they don't know anything then why the need to escalate matters? Just because the owner won't talk to them? If they do know something then surely they are duty bound to inform all supporters, and not via the latest issue of VOTV either. And why the radio silence?
I don't for one min think that RD has established his wealth by bending to that pressure
Dan your right on timing but not just the powell bit
Time the ST boycott the creation of G21 and the attempt to get RD to the table in line with something concrete that challenges RD's motives do that and I am front line in wanting to know wtf is being played with our club
After all we knew how much we owed the milkman over the last few months mainly due to info from persons in that group
If it appears in the votv before it appears anywhere else then its all for the wrong reasons and that's before votv goes to print not highlighting what's in it
Paddy I don't want to cut them slack I want to support them and move whatever needs to be done on
But I want to know why and what and I just can't understand why we needed to know of this group prior to knowing what changed
Do it in a shroud of secrecy if needed
But it is damaging to the trust you can tell they don't all agree themselves and although its healthy having differing opinions its also damaging if some feel that it weakens the trust and seeing as the biggest consenses on this thread alone feels its detrimental and I personally feel damaging to the trust then in its essence the existance and way that the PR on this group has come out has damaged the trust
And that to me is a real shame
It seems to me that people are seeing ghosts of former owners and anticipating (so far as I can see without good cause, at least at the moment) decisions as detrimental to the identity of the Club as those of the mid 80s.
All of that would not be so bad if it were not for the fact that, at great effort on the part of a number of people of equally good intention (including some of the "old guard"), a promising and growing supporters' body (CAST) has been established to represent supporters' interests to the new owner.
One voice would be very much preferential at this stage. If the balloon goes up and there are objectionable plans announced, then for sure, man the barricades.
You said it for me - what's the rush?
Why also did these fans not want to bring TJ Slater etc to the table as Roland has done no worse than them at present, just seems to be a hidden agenda with this takeover from certain fans and if they do know any different tell us so we can ALL get behind the movement.
It was indeed rushed. I've not disagreed with that, nor am I going to. I don't think the Trust as a whole is affiliated with this group so I'm unsure as to why you're asking for them to control the actions of others...
Im fully behind RD.
In the light of the way in which the general consensus seems to have moved away somewhat from the initial support shown for the G21, it would be interesting to know how many of the "likes" for the OP would now prefer to "unlike".
Good. We don't want to be one of those clubs that draw and lose games as their primary objectives. Give him all you've got!
If you think about the mood of the fans going up to Sheffield United, all that hope and positive anticipation, and then the massive disappointment. That does not put people in a good mood to start with.
Add to that the rumours about what transpired pre match as 5,300 Addicks assembled in Sheffield.
Added to that the worry about the SL bloke saying that SL players come to Charlton to get experience.
Add to that the dismissal of Chris Powell, and the unknown Jose Riga, along with Karel Fraeye (who also says that SL are the number one club). And the worry/hope about results thereafter.
Add to that a sense that the finances simply don't seen to stack up as a break even business, and will need a lot of free money in to sustain Charlton, does that money ever have to be paid back, and when, and how?
Add to that the sense that we are only one chemical in a hard to understand football/business experiment, but in terms of player movement thus far we don't seem to be benefiting enough to face the rest of the season, and we wonder if that is a priority concern for Roland.
Add to that the Powell free season ticket renewal forms landing on our mats (mostly ;-)).
Of course Chris Powell's sacking collected all these worries and fears together. Of course it did, he was a respected and popular man.
Is it any wonder that in the immediate context of last Tuesday and Wednesday these issues of concern rush to the forefront of a lot of peoples thinking? In the sense of frustration enough people wanted to do something straight away, maybe to prove that within the Charlton support there are those who respond to events rapidly. Indeed many individual people had already written in to the club in the 36 hours or so between Powell's sacking and the pre-Huddersfield meeting.
It may be a clumsy way of reacting by the supporters group, there remains a huge question regarding the nature of synergy with the trust, but the context was about a lot of the worries I have mentioned above. They may be trivial concerns to some, but are a worry to others, hence there was a sense of urgency and immediacy, and of course if one acts in haste, one is obliged to reflect at leisure.
I still believe people acted because they care, and it may be the defeat at Sheffield was an even bigger trigger than the change of manager.
I. I don't think the aims of the group are a problem
2. Reasoned approach to achieve a reasonable dialogue is fine
3. RDs empire is unusual if not totally unique so a better understanding of the direction of travel and the medium and long term goals for our club assuming they involve investment on and off the pitch is a good story not a bad story so why not share that if that is the case?
4. I do not and neither should any of us expect a forensic expose of RDs plans - just an idea of where they see the club in 5 years and what they intend to do to get us there.
I entirely understand the arguments about the Trust being the vehicle for this dialogue. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. My guess is that consitutionally it is less free to do this than a loose gathering of supporters. In the end do I care? No unless somebody can convince me that the intervention of those who in the past have made a difference is actually counter-productive. I just don't see it.
When people put their heads above the parapet, some will take a shot at them. T'was ever thus. I broadly welcome the initative. Like AFKA I sincerely trust, as a subscriber to VOTV, we do not have to wait for things to drip drip out on there. If I judge AB correctly, I very much doubt it will happen that way.
Sorting threads by latest comment, while practical and easy, leads to inflammatory discussions at the top, where lots of bickering is going on. I AM blaming aspects of the forum. I also don't think anyone should really have responded to this post in the first place, if they didn't agree with it. If we had a voting system - we down vote and move on.