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.
Come on then @AFKABartram all you have to do is get this algorithm implemented and you'll have a half decent forum on your hands !
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 also don't think anyone should really have responded to this post in the first place, if they didn't agree with it.
Right oh!
I won't bother responding to tell you what you've just posted above is absolute bollocks.
Really interesting debate from all sides. Just picking up on cafcfan's question of like/unlike, I would say I initially liked with reservations about whether this should be done through the Trust and the fact that I actually think RD has done very well since he arrived. I am still in the same boat.
That is to say that my initial reaction was that it was wrong that it was done separately, but actually, thinking about it, it seems to me that if an error of judgement has been made then it was (a) fairly understandable in the atmosphere at the time, and (b) done purely out of passion for the good of the club and a way needs to be found to incorporate people like that into the Trust's systems. That said, the club did need to continue to talk to the fans at that point and anything that would achieve that was good.
I do think that the strong feelings of the past couple of weeks (is that all - feels like a lifetime!) would have shown the club, again what passionate fans it has and, in general RD's new regime seems to be very open to communicating with the fans, so I think there is an opportunity to push for more regular communication which would be to the benefit of all.
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 don't necessarily disagree with this comment, but at the same time the VOTV is probably read by more supporters than any other publication than the match day program.
I know that Charlton Life doesn't have an exclusive membership (i.e. anyone can access it - even if they have to register for members only threads) but I think it would be difficult to justify, for example, that this group answer questions on here opposed to a larger read medium, like the VOTV.
Those of us on here are, probably, tempted to assume that this is the best place for getting and publishing, information about the club, but in truth there is a large body of fans that read the VOTV that have never been on here.
What is, in my view, more crucial is why was the formation of this group was posted on here in the first place. It is on the VOTV Online website so it could have been kept off here. Bringing it on here does open up the OP for requests for more information but I suspect it was just to increase the circulation of the 'news' that this group have come together again.
I'm not sure that I have a view either way about where they make public statements, but one could make an argument that it would be difficult to think of anything else that AB could have done to increase his profile since he left the club - and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but just how it looks to me.
All the time there is disharmony and a campaign to be fought the circulation of the VOTV is likely to be bigger. I'm not, for one second, suggesting that there is any self serving motive on behalf of any of those that are involved with the fanzine but I suspect that I'm not the only one that has come to this conclusion.
A multiple page story about the new group and/or its members and/or their plans in the £2 VOTV might raise a few more questions.
Is there another 'supporters meeting' tomorrow pre match?
As in the opening statement;
"This group is not intended to be exclusive. An invitation has been extended to Charlton Life, members of the Fans’ Forum and others with an Addicks internet presence and all concerned want to proceed without factionalism or internal politics. Any other supporters’ groups are welcome to participate too".
Does that mean I can attend or is it by invitation only - like the first meeting?
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 don't necessarily disagree with this comment, but at the same time the VOTV is probably read by more supporters than any other publication than the match day program.
I know that Charlton Life doesn't have an exclusive membership (i.e. anyone can access it - even if they have to register for members only threads) but I think it would be difficult to justify, for example, that this group answer questions on here opposed to a larger read medium, like the VOTV.
Those of us on here are, probably, tempted to assume that this is the best place for getting and publishing, information about the club, but in truth there is a large body of fans that read the VOTV that have never been on here.
What is, in my view, more crucial is why was the formation of this group was posted on here in the first place. It is on the VOTV Online website so it could have been kept off here. Bringing it on here does open up the OP for requests for more information but I suspect it was just to increase the circulation of the 'news' that this group have come together again.
I'm not sure that I have a view either way about where they make public statements, but one could make an argument that it would be difficult to think of anything else that AB could have done to increase his profile since he left the club - and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but just how it looks to me.
All the time there is disharmony and a campaign to be fought the circulation of the VOTV is likely to be bigger. I'm not, for one second, suggesting that there is any self serving motive on behalf of any of those that are involved with the fanzine but I suspect that I'm not the only one that has come to this conclusion.
A multiple page story about the new group and/or its members and/or their plans in the £2 VOTV might raise a few more questions.
I'm just sharing what I've been thinking!
Is your assumption that more people read VOTV than CL based on evidence ? Not having a go, I'd just assume that probably more people spend more time reading CL than VOTV but I have nothing to back that up. @Seriously_red might know.
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 don't necessarily disagree with this comment, but at the same time the VOTV is probably read by more supporters than any other publication than the match day program.
I know that Charlton Life doesn't have an exclusive membership (i.e. anyone can access it - even if they have to register for members only threads) but I think it would be difficult to justify, for example, that this group answer questions on here opposed to a larger read medium, like the VOTV.
Those of us on here are, probably, tempted to assume that this is the best place for getting and publishing, information about the club, but in truth there is a large body of fans that read the VOTV that have never been on here.
I disagree.
I'd bet that the monthly unique hits to this site are significantly higher than the circulation of VOTV. Even if VOTV is read by2/3 members of the same family and a lot of the hits here are from non Charlton fans.
I don't know if AFKA can expand on that - for instance, it would be interesting to know how many unique hits this thread has had.
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.
Don't understand your problem with this thread. It has been a vigorous debate. A Reddit style voting algorithm (if I understand it correctly) would be a disaster for this forum imo. CL is not a global site with millions of users so it does not have the problem of being inundated with dross from internet trolls. If this algorithm were adopted I fear CL would become a more exclusive community dominated by a different clique to the one we have already.
It was just an assumption based on the number of people that I've seen buy it over the years.
Clearly I don't know the circulation numbers of the VOTV, nor the number of unique hits that CL gets, nor the unique hits that any specific thread gets.
I think I did say 'probably read by more supporters that any other publication' and I wasn't attempting to rubbish CL, just making the point that it is not obvious, to me, that CL should be the place that the group publish what they have to say!
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.
I think you're missing the point and the difference between Reddit and a discussion forum.
Really interesting debate from all sides. Just picking up on cafcfan's question of like/unlike, I would say I initially liked with reservations about whether this should be done through the Trust and the fact that I actually think RD has done very well since he arrived. I am still in the same boat.
That is to say that my initial reaction was that it was wrong that it was done separately, but actually, thinking about it, it seems to me that if an error of judgement has been made then it was (a) fairly understandable in the atmosphere at the time, and (b) done purely out of passion for the good of the club and a way needs to be found to incorporate people like that into the Trust's systems. That said, the club did need to continue to talk to the fans at that point and anything that would achieve that was good.
I do think that the strong feelings of the past couple of weeks (is that all - feels like a lifetime!) would have shown the club, again what passionate fans it has and, in general RD's new regime seems to be very open to communicating with the fans, so I think there is an opportunity to push for more regular communication which would be to the benefit of all.
It would be good of them to admit they made a mistake, in the same post as they tell us wtf is going on would be nice.
just making the point that it is not obvious, to me, that CL should be the place that the group publish what they have to say!
It was obvious to Airman - hence the thread.
I think you missed my point. I was referring to what they have to say next.
Just because it was obvious to Airman to start this thread, it doesn't automatically mean that he will use CL to inform us all of what this group are doing. He might decide to do that with his fanzine.
It is not obvious, to me, that CL should be the place the group publish what they have to say next!
just making the point that it is not obvious, to me, that CL should be the place that the group publish what they have to say!
It was obvious to Airman - hence the thread.
Just because it was obvious to Airman to start this thread, it doesn't automatically mean that he will use CL to inform us all of what this group are doing. He might decide to do that with his fanzine.
It is not obvious, to me, that CL should be the place the group publish what they have to say next!
I hope that clears it up for you?
Well in that case, the quote from the post "and report back to the wider support" doesn't make any sense.
It was just an assumption based on the number of people that I've seen buy it over the years.
Clearly I don't know the circulation numbers of the VOTV, nor the number of unique hits that CL gets, nor the unique hits that any specific thread gets.
I think I did say 'probably read by more supporters that any other publication' and I wasn't attempting to rubbish CL, just making the point that it is not obvious, to me, that CL should be the place that the group publish what they have to say!
Fair enough, it's probably difficult to compare a publication with an Internet forum but I'd imagine more people spend some time (even if its one second) reading Charlton Life than VOTV.
I'd imagine this is a trend throughout publishing and the reason that Internet sites are increasingly popular compared to physical publications was quite ironically demonstrated by Airman's opening post.
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 don't necessarily disagree with this comment, but at the same time the VOTV is probably read by more supporters than any other publication than the match day program.
I know that Charlton Life doesn't have an exclusive membership (i.e. anyone can access it - even if they have to register for members only threads) but I think it would be difficult to justify, for example, that this group answer questions on here opposed to a larger read medium, like the VOTV.
Those of us on here are, probably, tempted to assume that this is the best place for getting and publishing, information about the club, but in truth there is a large body of fans that read the VOTV that have never been on here.
I disagree.
I'd bet that the monthly unique hits to this site are significantly higher than the circulation of VOTV. Even if VOTV is read by2/3 members of the same family and a lot of the hits here are from non Charlton fans.
I don't know if AFKA can expand on that - for instance, it would be interesting to know how many unique hits this thread has had.
Ah, but print circulation is different to readership...
In all seriousness you can't underestimate word of mouth and trust in the content of VOTV, whereas most of what's said on here is nonsense - my own posts included!
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 don't necessarily disagree with this comment, but at the same time the VOTV is probably read by more supporters than any other publication than the match day program.
I know that Charlton Life doesn't have an exclusive membership (i.e. anyone can access it - even if they have to register for members only threads) but I think it would be difficult to justify, for example, that this group answer questions on here opposed to a larger read medium, like the VOTV.
Those of us on here are, probably, tempted to assume that this is the best place for getting and publishing, information about the club, but in truth there is a large body of fans that read the VOTV that have never been on here.
I disagree.
I'd bet that the monthly unique hits to this site are significantly higher than the circulation of VOTV. Even if VOTV is read by2/3 members of the same family and a lot of the hits here are from non Charlton fans.
I don't know if AFKA can expand on that - for instance, it would be interesting to know how many unique hits this thread has had.
Ah, but print circulation is different to readership...
In all seriousness you can't underestimate word of mouth and trust in the content of VOTV, whereas most of what's said on here is nonsense - my own posts included!
just making the point that it is not obvious, to me, that CL should be the place that the group publish what they have to say!
It was obvious to Airman - hence the thread.
Just because it was obvious to Airman to start this thread, it doesn't automatically mean that he will use CL to inform us all of what this group are doing. He might decide to do that with his fanzine.
It is not obvious, to me, that CL should be the place the group publish what they have to say next!
I hope that clears it up for you?
Well in that case, the quote from the post "and report back to the wider support" doesn't make any sense.
But it doesn't say how they would report back to the wider support does it?
The post is, incidentally, the same as is on the VOTV Online web site.
Frankly, I really don't care how they choose to communicate what they are going to do. I also no longer care what you think they should (or will) do. However, despite you continuing to argue and bicker about it, it doesn't, and it won't, change my view that I am not, personally, convinced that they will come on here to tell us first, nor that they should do.
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.
The problem with this though, AFKA, is that the creation of this group might well detract from the Trusts ability to a) get a hearing with RD/KM and b) be taken seriously by them. It would be entirely understandable if RD/KM, if approached by more than one supporters body, said "go away and sort yourselves out first, because we are not going to deal with any more than one group". My initial reaction to the group was " good on you" for all the reasons you state, but the more I think about it the more I think t. He establishment of a separate group is shooting us collectively in the foot.
Fair points Davo, the question is whether a one cop routine will prove more productive than a good cop / bad cop combo. Of course, a lot depends on the respective abilities of the coppers involved, but still think it is too early to have a strong opinion on this. Certainly is for me.
Guys when someone writes an essay is it really necessary to quote their whole post when you are responding? Sorry to whinge but when you are reading this on a phone I get thumb cramp scrolling down to read someone's opinion on someone else's.
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.
I think you're missing the point and the difference between Reddit and a discussion forum.
Reddit is by and large a discussion forum. Looking at the various sub-reddits, you have for instance /r/soccer, /r/AskReddit, /r/cricket, /r/music, /r/books, /r/television, /r/worldnews and so on. They're all fora through which a piece of news, or discussion topic, is and can be posted. Still, I won't post any more otherwise I'll be being even more hypocritical than I am at the moment re prolonging needless threads with a lack of constructive discussion.
Just to briefly cover a couple of points raised that are away from the broader topic. Happy to take forward separately, but probably best after this post on another thread / inbox.
paddy - I'm sorry I've not had any time to research your potential improvements, though I know that your main suggestion will not work with our current platform technical framework. even if it was, I'm not convinced it would be an improvement for this type of forum, but I will look into further when I get a chance at some point and I value your input
kings Hill - Taking CL and the Voice and comparing is not a realistic comparison. One is a production, the other simply a platform. As a platform, we not only provide a facility for debate, but equally for getting awareness out to the biggest CAFC audience outside the #cafc twitter hashtag and the clubs official Twitter and Fbook accounts. That's why, for example the supporters groups announce their meetings here, the Trust successfully got itself up and running on here, Rick announces the next VOTV edition, and even some club announcements get promoted on here. The 3min clap thing (whether you agreed or disagreed) showed how quickly you can potentially get things out there in a few hours. If Rick was going to announce something that was not solely a VOTV thing, I'd like to think we are actually provide the perfect platform for that, and hopefully continue to do so. The fact it then extend into an instant pros and cons debate such as has followed, is debatable whether that is a positive or negative. But no one can say that they don't have the platform to put in their two penneth.
Whether any articles I write are taken as simply my view or as a CL editorial stance, I've absolutely no idea, and I suspect will differ from reader to reader. The last article produced by Valley McMoist was very different to my own view, so hopefully that is an example that there is no unfair agenda pushing.
As we are independent, we are not linked to the Club, The Trust or any specific supporters group, so everyone should potentially have the same voice allowance. One way or another, we've still not found the right balance for that with the Trust at certain times, but I'm very hopefully behind the scenes we can work together find the right balance going forward to improve on that.
In terms of numbers, I've learnt that it doesn't serve any purpose going into detail as these things can be easily manipulated and carry little value, but the average amount of unique visitors to here on a daily basis would be multiples of an average Voice circulation. That however is to be fully expected in this digital age, and the fact one is a compulsory purchase read and the other not. Despite the reader aspect dwarfing the Voice, I'm sure the Voice will be much more widely respected as the more established brand, as born by the number of members on here that have wrote articles for the Voice since it's return despite my yearly pleas for people to share the written output burden with me :-)
In response to SE 9 addick and KHA about market share / fans usage of various media I can confirm the following (but may edit later if the figures are inaccurate) CAFC. Co.UK always polls just over 90% Charlton Life is up from 32% last year to 45% now The Trust site is up from 10% last May to 22% And VOTV fanzine has been read by c.35% at least once since relaunch And Twitter used a lot more by younger fans is around 40% So Charlton Life is simply the most used and has jumped since the takeover ~ I recall they reported a 30% increase in traffic. And the Trust is exhibiting consistent growth of 5% every few months. No comparison for VOTV as we didn't ask about it last May. Only one of these independent communication channels is fully incorporated and has a fully accountable board. And only one has a policy of critical analysis of the club but no att
I don't think there is a conflict. I don't see how the new group destabilises anything. It is not like gang territory. They are just asking a few questions.
If you dont think there is a conflict then you clearly havent been reading this thread correctly...sorry.
Comments
Come on then @AFKABartram all you have to do is get this algorithm implemented and you'll have a half decent forum on your hands !
I won't bother responding to tell you what you've just posted above is absolute bollocks.
That is to say that my initial reaction was that it was wrong that it was done separately, but actually, thinking about it, it seems to me that if an error of judgement has been made then it was (a) fairly understandable in the atmosphere at the time, and (b) done purely out of passion for the good of the club and a way needs to be found to incorporate people like that into the Trust's systems. That said, the club did need to continue to talk to the fans at that point and anything that would achieve that was good.
I do think that the strong feelings of the past couple of weeks (is that all - feels like a lifetime!) would have shown the club, again what passionate fans it has and, in general RD's new regime seems to be very open to communicating with the fans, so I think there is an opportunity to push for more regular communication which would be to the benefit of all.
I know that Charlton Life doesn't have an exclusive membership (i.e. anyone can access it - even if they have to register for members only threads) but I think it would be difficult to justify, for example, that this group answer questions on here opposed to a larger read medium, like the VOTV.
Those of us on here are, probably, tempted to assume that this is the best place for getting and publishing, information about the club, but in truth there is a large body of fans that read the VOTV that have never been on here.
What is, in my view, more crucial is why was the formation of this group was posted on here in the first place. It is on the VOTV Online website so it could have been kept off here. Bringing it on here does open up the OP for requests for more information but I suspect it was just to increase the circulation of the 'news' that this group have come together again.
I'm not sure that I have a view either way about where they make public statements, but one could make an argument that it would be difficult to think of anything else that AB could have done to increase his profile since he left the club - and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but just how it looks to me.
All the time there is disharmony and a campaign to be fought the circulation of the VOTV is likely to be bigger. I'm not, for one second, suggesting that there is any self serving motive on behalf of any of those that are involved with the fanzine but I suspect that I'm not the only one that has come to this conclusion.
A multiple page story about the new group and/or its members and/or their plans in the £2 VOTV might raise a few more questions.
I'm just sharing what I've been thinking!
As in the opening statement;
"This group is not intended to be exclusive. An invitation has been extended to Charlton Life, members of the Fans’ Forum and others with an Addicks internet presence and all concerned want to proceed without factionalism or internal politics. Any other supporters’ groups are welcome to participate too".
Does that mean I can attend or is it by invitation only - like the first meeting?
Simple question.
I'd bet that the monthly unique hits to this site are significantly higher than the circulation of VOTV. Even if VOTV is read by2/3 members of the same family and a lot of the hits here are from non Charlton fans.
I don't know if AFKA can expand on that - for instance, it would be interesting to know how many unique hits this thread has had.
Clearly I don't know the circulation numbers of the VOTV, nor the number of unique hits that CL gets, nor the unique hits that any specific thread gets.
I think I did say 'probably read by more supporters that any other publication' and I wasn't attempting to rubbish CL, just making the point that it is not obvious, to me, that CL should be the place that the group publish what they have to say!
Just because it was obvious to Airman to start this thread, it doesn't automatically mean that he will use CL to inform us all of what this group are doing. He might decide to do that with his fanzine.
It is not obvious, to me, that CL should be the place the group publish what they have to say next!
I hope that clears it up for you?
I'd imagine this is a trend throughout publishing and the reason that Internet sites are increasingly popular compared to physical publications was quite ironically demonstrated by Airman's opening post.
In all seriousness you can't underestimate word of mouth and trust in the content of VOTV, whereas most of what's said on here is nonsense - my own posts included!
The post is, incidentally, the same as is on the VOTV Online web site.
Frankly, I really don't care how they choose to communicate what they are going to do. I also no longer care what you think they should (or will) do. However, despite you continuing to argue and bicker about it, it doesn't, and it won't, change my view that I am not, personally, convinced that they will come on here to tell us first, nor that they should do.
What the hell is an algorithm ?
Fora??
paddy - I'm sorry I've not had any time to research your potential improvements, though I know that your main suggestion will not work with our current platform technical framework. even if it was, I'm not convinced it would be an improvement for this type of forum, but I will look into further when I get a chance at some point and I value your input
kings Hill - Taking CL and the Voice and comparing is not a realistic comparison. One is a production, the other simply a platform. As a platform, we not only provide a facility for debate, but equally for getting awareness out to the biggest CAFC audience outside the #cafc twitter hashtag and the clubs official Twitter and Fbook accounts. That's why, for example the supporters groups announce their meetings here, the Trust successfully got itself up and running on here, Rick announces the next VOTV edition, and even some club announcements get promoted on here. The 3min clap thing (whether you agreed or disagreed) showed how quickly you can potentially get things out there in a few hours. If Rick was going to announce something that was not solely a VOTV thing, I'd like to think we are actually provide the perfect platform for that, and hopefully continue to do so. The fact it then extend into an instant pros and cons debate such as has followed, is debatable whether that is a positive or negative. But no one can say that they don't have the platform to put in their two penneth.
Whether any articles I write are taken as simply my view or as a CL editorial stance, I've absolutely no idea, and I suspect will differ from reader to reader. The last article produced by Valley McMoist was very different to my own view, so hopefully that is an example that there is no unfair agenda pushing.
As we are independent, we are not linked to the Club, The Trust or any specific supporters group, so everyone should potentially have the same voice allowance. One way or another, we've still not found the right balance for that with the Trust at certain times, but I'm very hopefully behind the scenes we can work together find the right balance going forward to improve on that.
In terms of numbers, I've learnt that it doesn't serve any purpose going into detail as these things can be easily manipulated and carry little value, but the average amount of unique visitors to here on a daily basis would be multiples of an average Voice circulation. That however is to be fully expected in this digital age, and the fact one is a compulsory purchase read and the other not. Despite the reader aspect dwarfing the Voice, I'm sure the Voice will be much more widely respected as the more established brand, as born by the number of members on here that have wrote articles for the Voice since it's return despite my yearly pleas for people to share the written output burden with me :-)
Hope that helps answer your questions
CAFC. Co.UK always polls just over 90%
Charlton Life is up from 32% last year to 45% now
The Trust site is up from 10% last May to 22%
And VOTV fanzine has been read by c.35% at least once since relaunch
And Twitter used a lot more by younger fans is around 40%
So Charlton Life is simply the most used and has jumped since the takeover ~ I recall they reported a 30% increase in traffic.
And the Trust is exhibiting consistent growth of 5% every few months.
No comparison for VOTV as we didn't ask about it last May.
Only one of these independent communication channels is fully incorporated and has a fully accountable board. And only one has a policy of critical analysis of the club but no att