Back in the day I remember this "they seemed surprised we could do joined up writing" (nothing to do with who said it) it seems to me that the G21 dont think the Trust can read it either and are now a little surprised!!
Not read all the thread and Ben out of it for a few days so apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick. Ian quite confused!
I won't rush to judgement on either the trust or the G21 as I am a member of neither. However, I can't quite fathom how, given the Trust's statement (which is about as clear as it can be given the need to accommodate a range of views), the two Trust board members can still be party to the G21. Is the latter more realistically a G19?
I'm not convinced all of this helps anyone at the moment. Fans are being divided and there is an implication that there will be action taken against the owner and the peasants will revolt. From where I sit I'd like to see how the Belgian experiment pans out before I go looking for my pitchfork. So far, communications have improved (albeit from zilch to "a bit better"), we have promised investment in the pitch and the academy and my season ticket has just halfed in price. I'd have been doing cartwheels if that had been suggested at Christmas! Certainly the Powell affair has left a bad taste more because of the method than the fact of it IMHO and squad changes have been handled clumsily. I am somewhere between curiosity and uncertainty about where we are headed but to me an uprising is premature. That's not to say I'm correct of course or that my view is any more valid than the rebels or the shoulder shruggers.
Whatever the case, if I was in Roland's shoes at the moment Id be pretty dismissive, rightly or wrongly, of a group who give at least a hint of hostility at a point where I'd feel entitled to a bit of gratitude for saving the club whatever my long term intentions. He will probably tell the G19 to F off! He might also see this as a good excuse niot to take the Trust very seriously. Not the brightest week among the faithful methinks although I reserve the right to jump on the bandwagon when it all goes tits up! As I say, in confused!
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?
Simple question.
If there is, I'm not aware of it. Unless there's a breakaway group that I haven't been told about....
Firstly the way I see it is the two Trust members in the G21 need to either resign from the trust or remove their names from the list. There's currently a big conflict of interest there following last night's statement.
It strikes me that this episode shows that when it needs to move quickly the Trust is strangled in red tape due to it's "democratic" nature. Looking at the names on the list, reading Peter Varney's recent thoughts in the press, etc I think those that want to put their heads in the sand until "something goes wrong" should be happy to stick with the trust and ignore the other groups actions.
For me though, I still welcome the statement from the other group as a collection of people who know how the club works inside out, are proven at getting results and are free from the constraints of organisational protocol. If they feel things are possibly afoot that need clarification in a way that the Trust couldn't facilitate then I trust their guts.
If you don't support this new group then what's the problem? You can carry on coming to watch the football and filling out your surveys, and if the new group fall flat on their face then it doesn't affect you one way or the other. If they do uncover clarity, either positive or negative, then everyone benefits. KM/RD is hardly going to refuse to engage with the trust at this point because of this new group... it's the new voices that are the ones at risk of being excluded.
Finally when we're talking about being transparent and inclusive - when was the meeting between KM and the Trust announced other than mentioned in passing on this thread.
Do the trust members think that's the best approach given the fact that there was a VIP meeting just a couple of weeks ago and if you were being harsh you could argue events since then would suggest she's just a duplicitous puppet?
Should the trust be aiming for a meeting with RD instead? What do the members think?
What questions are going to be asked by the Trust in this meeting and what tone are they going to take?
And based on recent events this next question is the most significant to me -
Will the results of this conversation with KM be transcribed and communicated to the members in full or will certain answers be "embargoed" as has happened recently? The one thing the "G21" has going for them is that they will never agree to those kinds of terms, which is why I think they have a role to play and I "like" the original statement still.
I support Charlton, I support the Trust in most things it's done so far, and I support the names on the "G21" list who have earned my respect and faith in making the right decision. I agree with the earlier poster who said that in it's statement it feels like the Trust is implying we should choose one side or the other. I know which group of people I have more trust in getting answers.
Sorry @LeaburnForEngland but I don't think it's as simple as that. Firstly, no meeting with Roland is going to be called for and set up overnight so the idea that urgent, fast action is needed is a myth.
Secondly by having more than one approach being made, the club can claim that neither group represents the fans and more easily ignore all requests to meet. So the idea of doing nothing because you don't support the group is wrong, many feel it is detrimental to the efforts of the Trust if this group continues with its own calls for a meeting.
And thirdly, by refusing to acknowledge these concerns, or clarifying whether the group will pursue their own agenda regardless of them, the group is making people even more nervous about their intentions.
However, I do agree that the Trust members who signed the letter now need to either remove their names or leave the Trust.
But what appears to be very very clear from all these posts is that most people just don't understand what's going on and want to know more information which the new group is arrogantly / ignorantly / or plain stupildy refusing to do.
If one of their claims is that they can respond to issues more quickly than the trust how comes they haven't reponded as quickly as the Trust did after making this initial statement?
If one of their claims is that they can respond to issues more quickly than the trust how comes they haven't reponded as quickly as the Trust did after making this initial statement?
I would strongly suspect because any reply here would result in a counter argument that would then require another response and so on.
They've stated their position and I would have thought will make another statement when they're ready rather than getting into a pissing contest on here.
I think it would have made for a more entertaining thread but wouldn't have helped anyone's cause particularly.
One other point - if the next "announcement" is in a £2 VOTV then I would agree with everyone who has said that would be a bad thing. Any further comments should be made to multiple outlets just like the original statement.
Secondly by having more than one approach being made, the club can claim that neither group represents the fans and more easily ignore all requests to meet.
I also disagree with that. One group is 21 strong, the other has over 1,000 members. That argument wouldn't wash. That's why I think we should respect the 21 for putting their reputations on the line by putting this out there. The club can easily say to them "you're dinosaurs from another era and don't represent the current fan base" but there is no way they could credibly say that to the Trust.
So like I say I don't see this as a threat to the Trust's dialogue to the club at all (other than the fact two of the board members are part of the 21 - that's the strangest thing in all this to me post-last night's statement)
While a conflict of interest may develop (and so departures may be appropriate), for the time-being I would not wish to see member of G21 who is also involved with CAS Trust stand aside from either body. It is (hopefully) under their auspices that both parties (it seems that it is only one that needs persuading) may be brought to realise the benefits of co-operation and speaking with one voice.
don't think you can call G21 a 'body'. No constitution, no elected officers, no real aims, no communication. At the moment just a collection of bodies.
don't think you can call G21 a 'body'. No constitution, no elected officers, no real aims, no communication. At the moment just a collection of bodies.
Fine, I would wish them to remain one of the bodies thinking about becoming a body, while remaining a member of the actual body that many bodies have worked very hard to turn from a collection of bodies into a proper body and which seeks to represent everybody, so that the body and the collection of bodies, which currently represents nobody, can become one.........er........body... )
Beginning to look like NLA is right ... we will not hear anything until VOTV is released.
I always buy VOTV but find it ridiculous if this is the case.
What about open and free communication? Hopefully this is wrong and today we will receive some answers to the questions asked on this thread.
Looking like this is correct ... we will only receive the answers in VOTV ... as a thread was started on CL I would have hoped for clarification also on CL. Obviously I expected too much ... so disappointing.
Beginning to look like NLA is right ... we will not hear anything until VOTV is released.
I always buy VOTV but find it ridiculous if this is the case.
What about open and free communication? Hopefully this is wrong and today we will receive some answers to the questions asked on this thread.
Looking like this is correct ... we will only receive the answers in VOTV ... as a thread was started on CL I would have hoped for clarification also on CL. Obviously I expected too much ... so disappointing.
Or maybe...
They've stated their position and I would have thought will make another statement when they're ready rather than getting into a pissing contest on here.
Thanks Shirty. I suppose all may be revealed then?
As someone who is still not convinced by CAST (my choice), I am also unsure of how G21 (or G19 as it may become) can help matters? These owners, like any before them, have no formal duty to reveal short-, mid-, or longer-term plans to fans, despite what we would hope and want. Plans can change year-on-year, and even month-on-month (what with injuries, form, players demanding transfers, training ground punch-ups, infrastructure issues, etc etc etc) so whatever RD and/or KM may say to a group collective now, that may not be the case by the end of the season. We cannot expect to be kept abreast of every new development at the club, which is not run as a democratic membership experiment (Ebbsfleet tried that didn't they?).
I am all for communication being transparent, but we (the fans) have to be realistic, and at present, I do not think that G21 is being realistic in any of their stated aims (a meeting, better dialogue, etc).
Ultimately, we all want the club to be successful, both on and off the pitch. We need to give the new owner some time to do so. He has a plan; he has communicated this to the fans and media, and despite the negative spin put on it by some, we have to give him a chance. The alternative is not very nice - no players, no fans, and no club, all of which were on the horizon if Slater and Jiminez had been in charge for much longer.
There is far too much negativity around the club at the moment, and on this forum; sure, it looks bleak on the goalscoring front (hello Jonathan!), but if we can stay in this division, next year could bring about a pleasant surprise.
If not, well, it's just another season being a Charlton fan to me...
Why did nobody seek a meeting with Slater/Jiminez when Cash withdrew his funding and we looked to eventually be heading for administration?
From where i'm sitting we've got an owner who's prepared to completely sort out the Valley pitch, invest in our academy and training facilities, offer contracts to existing players and get some new players in.
Our previous owners did absolutely none of this over the past year or so yet i don't recall any groups being formed or demands for people to hold back on renewing season tickets at any point.
Why did nobody seek a meeting with Slater/Jiminez when Cash withdrew his funding and we looked to eventually be heading for administration?
From where i'm sitting we've got an owner who's prepared to completely sort out the Valley pitch, invest in our academy and training facilities, offer contracts to existing players and get some new players in.
Our previous owners did absolutely none of this over the past year or so yet i don't recall any groups being formed or demands for people to hold back on renewing season tickets at any point.
Totally agree. Too many hidden agenda's from some. The whole thing is getting boring.
Why did nobody seek a meeting with Slater/Jiminez when Cash withdrew his funding and we looked to eventually be heading for administration?
From where i'm sitting we've got an owner who's prepared to completely sort out the Valley pitch, invest in our academy and training facilities, offer contracts to existing players and get some new players in.
Our previous owners did absolutely none of this over the past year or so yet i don't recall any groups being formed or demands for people to hold back on renewing season tickets at any point.
agree entirely. Unless they have other information to which we are yet party to, in which case they should let us all in on the secret on here now and not through the auspices of VOTV.
Why did nobody seek a meeting with Slater/Jiminez when Cash withdrew his funding and we looked to eventually be heading for administration?
From where i'm sitting we've got an owner who's prepared to completely sort out the Valley pitch, invest in our academy and training facilities, offer contracts to existing players and get some new players in.
Our previous owners did absolutely none of this over the past year or so yet i don't recall any groups being formed or demands for people to hold back on renewing season tickets at any point.
agree entirely. Unless they have other information to which we are yet party to, in which case they should let us all in on the secret on here now and not through the auspices of VOTV.
Why should they Large? Just to garner more ridicule? There were those that questioned the previous regime but they got sacked as I recall.
Why did nobody seek a meeting with Slater/Jiminez when Cash withdrew his funding and we looked to eventually be heading for administration?
From where i'm sitting we've got an owner who's prepared to completely sort out the Valley pitch, invest in our academy and training facilities, offer contracts to existing players and get some new players in.
Our previous owners did absolutely none of this over the past year or so yet i don't recall any groups being formed or demands for people to hold back on renewing season tickets at any point.
I think the fact one board kept Chris Powell, the other sacked him, has something to do with it.
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
without trawling back through 19 pages, I cannot see the bit whereby I can accept the 'invitation'. Or do I actually have to run my own website or set up my own group?
Why did nobody seek a meeting with Slater/Jiminez when Cash withdrew his funding and we looked to eventually be heading for administration?
From where i'm sitting we've got an owner who's prepared to completely sort out the Valley pitch, invest in our academy and training facilities, offer contracts to existing players and get some new players in.
Our previous owners did absolutely none of this over the past year or so yet i don't recall any groups being formed or demands for people to hold back on renewing season tickets at any point.
agree entirely. Unless they have other information to which we are yet party to, in which case they should let us all in on the secret on here now and not through the auspices of VOTV.
Why should they Large? Just to garner more ridicule? There were those that questioned the previous regime but they got sacked as I recall.
so they want their cake and eat it? Ok to come on here, tell us they have had a meeting, formed the G21, seeking a chat with RD and KM, if not will escalate their 'actions' and then ..... nothing. Why bother telling us in the first place if you are not prepared to a) share any other information you have or b) answer legitimate questions people have.
Ridicule? Don't think they have been ridiculed, people just want answers.
Sacked? None of the G21 work for the Club so what can RD sack them from?
A tad disingenuous Large, I very specifically said that they were sacked by the previous regime. I think we will get answers. There are 21 people who presumably have to agree a joint statement, the Trust had less than ten people to consult. I have however agreed with others that the manner of the launch was inept. It nevertheless remains my belief that there is a very determined cabal who don't like Airman or Prague so personalities have sadly muddied the waters and some unfortunate and needless things have been said. I would merely prefer that we deal with the issues and not personalities. ( Now where have I heard that before ;-) )
Why did nobody seek a meeting with Slater/Jiminez when Cash withdrew his funding and we looked to eventually be heading for administration?
From where i'm sitting we've got an owner who's prepared to completely sort out the Valley pitch, invest in our academy and training facilities, offer contracts to existing players and get some new players in.
Our previous owners did absolutely none of this over the past year or so yet i don't recall any groups being formed or demands for people to hold back on renewing season tickets at any point.
Comments
I am impressed, and this has markedly increased the probability that I join the Trust.
Where's the independence? How can you explain why you're not part/involved in the group if you actually are in the group?
If anything I think it's more confusing.
I won't rush to judgement on either the trust or the G21 as I am a member of neither. However, I can't quite fathom how, given the Trust's statement (which is about as clear as it can be given the need to accommodate a range of views), the two Trust board members can still be party to the G21. Is the latter more realistically a G19?
I'm not convinced all of this helps anyone at the moment. Fans are being divided and there is an implication that there will be action taken against the owner and the peasants will revolt. From where I sit I'd like to see how the Belgian experiment pans out before I go looking for my pitchfork. So far, communications have improved (albeit from zilch to "a bit better"), we have promised investment in the pitch and the academy and my season ticket has just halfed in price. I'd have been doing cartwheels if that had been suggested at Christmas! Certainly the Powell affair has left a bad taste more because of the method than the fact of it IMHO and squad changes have been handled clumsily. I am somewhere between curiosity and uncertainty about where we are headed but to me an uprising is premature. That's not to say I'm correct of course or that my view is any more valid than the rebels or the shoulder shruggers.
Whatever the case, if I was in Roland's shoes at the moment Id be pretty dismissive, rightly or wrongly, of a group who give at least a hint of hostility at a point where I'd feel entitled to a bit of gratitude for saving the club whatever my long term intentions. He will probably tell the G19 to F off! He might also see this as a good excuse niot to take the Trust very seriously. Not the brightest week among the faithful methinks although I reserve the right to jump on the bandwagon when it all goes tits up! As I say, in confused!
It strikes me that this episode shows that when it needs to move quickly the Trust is strangled in red tape due to it's "democratic" nature. Looking at the names on the list, reading Peter Varney's recent thoughts in the press, etc I think those that want to put their heads in the sand until "something goes wrong" should be happy to stick with the trust and ignore the other groups actions.
For me though, I still welcome the statement from the other group as a collection of people who know how the club works inside out, are proven at getting results and are free from the constraints of organisational protocol. If they feel things are possibly afoot that need clarification in a way that the Trust couldn't facilitate then I trust their guts.
If you don't support this new group then what's the problem? You can carry on coming to watch the football and filling out your surveys, and if the new group fall flat on their face then it doesn't affect you one way or the other. If they do uncover clarity, either positive or negative, then everyone benefits. KM/RD is hardly going to refuse to engage with the trust at this point because of this new group... it's the new voices that are the ones at risk of being excluded.
Finally when we're talking about being transparent and inclusive - when was the meeting between KM and the Trust announced other than mentioned in passing on this thread.
Do the trust members think that's the best approach given the fact that there was a VIP meeting just a couple of weeks ago and if you were being harsh you could argue events since then would suggest she's just a duplicitous puppet?
Should the trust be aiming for a meeting with RD instead? What do the members think?
What questions are going to be asked by the Trust in this meeting and what tone are they going to take?
And based on recent events this next question is the most significant to me -
Will the results of this conversation with KM be transcribed and communicated to the members in full or will certain answers be "embargoed" as has happened recently? The one thing the "G21" has going for them is that they will never agree to those kinds of terms, which is why I think they have a role to play and I "like" the original statement still.
I support Charlton, I support the Trust in most things it's done so far, and I support the names on the "G21" list who have earned my respect and faith in making the right decision. I agree with the earlier poster who said that in it's statement it feels like the Trust is implying we should choose one side or the other. I know which group of people I have more trust in getting answers.
Secondly by having more than one approach being made, the club can claim that neither group represents the fans and more easily ignore all requests to meet. So the idea of doing nothing because you don't support the group is wrong, many feel it is detrimental to the efforts of the Trust if this group continues with its own calls for a meeting.
And thirdly, by refusing to acknowledge these concerns, or clarifying whether the group will pursue their own agenda regardless of them, the group is making people even more nervous about their intentions.
However, I do agree that the Trust members who signed the letter now need to either remove their names or leave the Trust.
But what appears to be very very clear from all these posts is that most people just don't understand what's going on and want to know more information which the new group is arrogantly / ignorantly / or plain stupildy refusing to do.
If one of their claims is that they can respond to issues more quickly than the trust how comes they haven't reponded as quickly as the Trust did after making this initial statement?
They've stated their position and I would have thought will make another statement when they're ready rather than getting into a pissing contest on here.
I think it would have made for a more entertaining thread but wouldn't have helped anyone's cause particularly.
One other point - if the next "announcement" is in a £2 VOTV then I would agree with everyone who has said that would be a bad thing. Any further comments should be made to multiple outlets just like the original statement.
So like I say I don't see this as a threat to the Trust's dialogue to the club at all (other than the fact two of the board members are part of the 21 - that's the strangest thing in all this to me post-last night's statement)
It is (hopefully) under their auspices that both parties (it seems that it is only one that needs persuading) may be brought to realise the benefits of co-operation and speaking with one voice.
They've stated their position and I would have thought will make another statement when they're ready rather than getting into a pissing contest on here.
As someone who is still not convinced by CAST (my choice), I am also unsure of how G21 (or G19 as it may become) can help matters? These owners, like any before them, have no formal duty to reveal short-, mid-, or longer-term plans to fans, despite what we would hope and want. Plans can change year-on-year, and even month-on-month (what with injuries, form, players demanding transfers, training ground punch-ups, infrastructure issues, etc etc etc) so whatever RD and/or KM may say to a group collective now, that may not be the case by the end of the season. We cannot expect to be kept abreast of every new development at the club, which is not run as a democratic membership experiment (Ebbsfleet tried that didn't they?).
I am all for communication being transparent, but we (the fans) have to be realistic, and at present, I do not think that G21 is being realistic in any of their stated aims (a meeting, better dialogue, etc).
Ultimately, we all want the club to be successful, both on and off the pitch. We need to give the new owner some time to do so. He has a plan; he has communicated this to the fans and media, and despite the negative spin put on it by some, we have to give him a chance. The alternative is not very nice - no players, no fans, and no club, all of which were on the horizon if Slater and Jiminez had been in charge for much longer.
There is far too much negativity around the club at the moment, and on this forum; sure, it looks bleak on the goalscoring front (hello Jonathan!), but if we can stay in this division, next year could bring about a pleasant surprise.
If not, well, it's just another season being a Charlton fan to me...
COYA!
From where i'm sitting we've got an owner who's prepared to completely sort out the Valley pitch, invest in our academy and training facilities, offer contracts to existing players and get some new players in.
Our previous owners did absolutely none of this over the past year or so yet i don't recall any groups being formed or demands for people to hold back on renewing season tickets at any point.
without trawling back through 19 pages, I cannot see the bit whereby I can accept the 'invitation'.
Or do I actually have to run my own website or set up my own group?
Ridicule? Don't think they have been ridiculed, people just want answers.
Sacked? None of the G21 work for the Club so what can RD sack them from?