I think the fact that this group has come about, and the reason for it, probably confirms suspicions that some have had for a while, that the Trust was, always, a little reluctant to fall out with the club. I guess what I'm, really, trying to say, without offending anyone, is that some of the Trust members seemed to be a little keen to cosy up to the club and those running it.
I think it is always going to be difficult to resist the temptation to be 'flattered' by being invited to be involved with the club. I'm not criticising those in the Trust, but I think the club will take this group much more seriously, and not be inclined to think that a bit of lip service and a few audiences with senior club officials will ensure 'compliance'.
I know there are members of the Trust involved with group, and I am not aiming my comments at anyone specific, but I, certainly, feel that this group have more teeth, and seem more inclined to show them - I suspect that those running the club will recognise this.
I see this as distinctly different to the Trust, the Trust campaigns on a wide variety of topics but this new grouping is concentrating on one issue, namely to establish a dialogue between themselves and RD. There is room for both and we need both.
Not sure how to put this without it sounding rude, which I'm not trying to be, but just interested to know how?
My understanding was that the trust was formed to create a voice for all supporters and to challenge and/or question decisions of those running the club. It was also formed to create a dialogue, and there appears to have been evidence of dialogue taking place on several topics.
This seems to be another group, incorporating members of the Trust, but with the same aims. So is this not just an extended version of the the Trust? And is it not the case that the Trust would be stronger with the people mentioned above included in it?
You are going to get roasted for questioning this.
I doubt it very much but then again he asked a fair question in a reasonable way rather than making yet another snide remark.
I think this is a very positive step. It shows RD that we care and that we want to be a part of, and kept in the loop of, anything going on within the club. Thanks for getting this going.
Standard Liege/Roland Duchatelet = Russia/Vladimir Putin Charlton = Ukraine Powell, Kermogant & Stephens = Crimea (Taken away from Ukraine without Ukraine's consent) Jose Riga = Yuriy Meshkov (Just a puppet of the Russian regime.) Football League = UN (Useless talking shop that can't achieve anything and hasn't got a spine.) CAS Trust = Germany (Supporters of Ukraine but worried that Russia will take their gas supply away if they get too tetchy.) New Campaign Group = USA (Can't be seen to kowtow to Russia, worried about their own popularity/credibility at home but carries a big stick and wants to impose sanctions on Russia like banning Russia from selling futures in its gas.)
Have I missed anything out? We'll just have to wait to see if Russia/Putin tells the USA it can swivel on it I suppose.
Not sure how to put this without it sounding rude, which I'm not trying to be, but just interested to know how?
My understanding was that the trust was formed to create a voice for all supporters and to challenge and/or question decisions of those running the club. It was also formed to create a dialogue, and there appears to have been evidence of dialogue taking place on several topics.
This seems to be another group, incorporating members of the Trust, but with the same aims. So is this not just an extended version of the the Trust? And is it not the case that the Trust would be stronger with the people mentioned above included in it?
Standard Liege/Roland Duchatelet = Russia/Vladimir Putin Charlton = Ukraine Powell, Kermogant & Stephens = Crimea (Taken away from Ukraine without Ukraine's consent) Jose Riga = Yuriy Meshkov (Just a puppet of the Russian regime.) Football League = UN (Useless talking shop that can't achieve anything and hasn't got a spine.) CAS Trust = Germany (Supporters of Ukraine but worried that Russia will take their gas supply away if they get too tetchy.) New Campaign Group = USA (Can't be seen to kowtow to Russia, worried about their own popularity/credibility at home but carries a big stick and wants to impose sanctions on Russia like banning Russia from selling futures in its gas.)
Have I missed anything out? We'll just have to wait to see if Russia/Putin tells the USA it can swivel on it I suppose.
You've missed out the bird that referred to Barraco Barmer.....
Don't see this as a positive step. If it is an attempt at constructive positive discussion why did it not come directly from the trust? It reads to me as a threat to the owner not an attempt to gain understanding.
Creating a separate faction of supporters presents an impression of a divided group to me which is surely not what you want. The fact that members of the trust are involved just confuses things further in my view.
If you were the owner would you want to engage with a random group of twenty fans who disagree with you? Whilst I appreciate that the names listed had important roles in previous years and have good contacts you are still just a small number of fans and to me this statement does nothing more than devalue the role of the trust.
Not sure how to put this without it sounding rude, which I'm not trying to be, but just interested to know how?
My understanding was that the trust was formed to create a voice for all supporters and to challenge and/or question decisions of those running the club. It was also formed to create a dialogue, and there appears to have been evidence of dialogue taking place on several topics.
This seems to be another group, incorporating members of the Trust, but with the same aims. So is this not just an extended version of the the Trust? And is it not the case that the Trust would be stronger with the people mentioned above included in it?
Not sure how to put this without it sounding rude, which I'm not trying to be, but just interested to know how?
My understanding was that the trust was formed to create a voice for all supporters and to challenge and/or question decisions of those running the club. It was also formed to create a dialogue, and there appears to have been evidence of dialogue taking place on several topics.
This seems to be another group, incorporating members of the Trust, but with the same aims. So is this not just an extended version of the the Trust? And is it not the case that the Trust would be stronger with the people mentioned above included in it?
The trust wants to be the nice guy and seems to think it will get a proper voice by doing so. If signature collecting is what you are after, you should see the trust, they have that down to a tee.
Don't see this as a positive step. If it is an attempt at constructive positive discussion why did it not come directly from the trust? It reads to me as a threat to the owner not an attempt to gain understanding.
Creating a separate faction of supporters presents an impression of a divided group to me which is surely not what you want. The fact that members of the trust are involved just confuses things further in my view.
If you were the owner would you want to engage with a random group of twenty fans who disagree with you? Whilst I appreciate that the names listed had important roles in previous years and have good contacts you are still just a small number of fans and to me this statement does nothing more than devalue the role of the trust.
'If you were the owner would you want to engage with a random group of twenty fans who disagree with you?'
I think the fact that this group has come about, and the reason for it, probably confirms suspicions that some have had for a while, that the Trust was, always, a little reluctant to fall out with the club. I guess what I'm, really, trying to say, without offending anyone, is that some of the Trust members seemed to be a little keen to cosy up to the club and those running it.
I think it is always going to be difficult to resist the temptation to be 'flattered' by being invited to be involved with the club. I'm not criticising those in the Trust, but I think the club will take this group much more seriously, and not be inclined to think that a bit of lip service and a few audiences with senior club officials will ensure 'compliance'.
I know there are members of the Trust involved with group, and I am not aiming my comments at anyone specific, but I, certainly, feel that this group have more teeth, and seem more inclined to show them - I suspect that those running the club will recognise this.
Whilst I see this as a worthy group, I can't see how it can put itself forward as wanting constructive discussion, it sounds like its looking for confrontation and in some ways plays into Rd's hands, if he even intends to have constructive discussion.
We now have Fans Forum, Supporters Trust, Supporters Clubs and "The Free Chris Powell Alliance". My membership of the trust is of a body that i thought would represent the fans on all issues, including this. If the Trust is not willing to take on all issues because they might be sensitive then it should not exist.
If RD is going to speak to the representatives of the fans then his choice is going to be the Trust surely - elected by the fans for the fans?
I think this is a shot across the bows. This is a group that potentially, as it has shown in the past, can organise and mobilise. If the worst case scenario plays out, ie that CAFC is more important to RD as a feeder club than as a club with ambitions in its own right, then the threat is that this will become an issue the group will mobilise people against.
Personally I have only one issue which will convince me that RD is serious about treating Charlton properly and keeping us in the Championship. He sold Kerm without a replacement lined up. He did not have to sell him then and certainly could have waited until a replacement was on board. We have scored 2 league goals in the last seven matches. If a replacement is not brought in now that alone will be enough to persuade me they do not care which division we are in next season. Then I will be joining this group.
Not sure how to put this without it sounding rude, which I'm not trying to be, but just interested to know how?
My understanding was that the trust was formed to create a voice for all supporters and to challenge and/or question decisions of those running the club. It was also formed to create a dialogue, and there appears to have been evidence of dialogue taking place on several topics.
This seems to be another group, incorporating members of the Trust, but with the same aims. So is this not just an extended version of the the Trust? And is it not the case that the Trust would be stronger with the people mentioned above included in it?
its the military arm, as in
The Trust = Sinn Fein Supporters Group = IRA
More like The Peoples Front of Judea and the Judean Popular Front.
@Airman, good to see that the focus is on constructive conversation first. I'm concerned that the Trust appears to be sidelined though - do you have different aims?
@Airman, good to see that the focus is on constructive conversation first. I'm concerned that the Trust appears to be sidelined though - do you have different aims?</blockquote
2 trust leaders were involved with the meeting. So not sidelined but will be interesting to see how things pan it between them.
We have launched a Chris Powell survey with nearly 1,000 responses so far - our biggest ever without club promotion. Many of the results are crystal clear. But some show a difference in fans views before and after the game he other night.
I won't comment on the other questions raised on this thread until the Trust has had a chance to meet and discuss the issue. Needless to say there have been a range of discussions and activities behind the scenes.
Many of the board of the Trust (and its membership) were not involved with the Valley Party and so there is a distinction in the people and their background. How this develops is anyones guess but Life of Brian is one possibility!
@Airman, good to see that the focus is on constructive conversation first. I'm concerned that the Trust appears to be sidelined though - do you have different aims?
It seems that this risks creating yet another group with yet another voice. I guess I'm concerned that we're unified.
I think the response that the action the Supporters Trust has taken is "launch a survey" says it all, and illustrates why this new action group was required.
For those younger supporters there are some serious Charlton "players" in this group, particularly former VIP Directors, who love our club but who also have a track record of doing things for the betterment of the club over the years. I'm particularly encouraged that Richard Hunt is part of the group. So good luck to all and those who join the group subsequently.
I think the response that the action the Supporters Trust has taken is "launch a survey" says it all, and illustrloates why this new action group was required.
Not to my mind. It shows they have sought to understand the feeling of their membership before acting as opposed to perhaps arbitrarily thinking that their status as 'important supporters' makes their unease at the current situation more valid than the views of the rest of us. I hasten to add that there is a healthy dose of cynicism on my part here and that I am certain their statement was issued with the best of intentions. I just think they are possibly jumping the gun a bit at this time.
“In the first instance, the group is seeking an urgent face-to-face meeting with Roland Duchatelet or Katrien Miere in order try to get a better understanding of the owner’s intentions and report back to the wider support.
If we are unable to enter into a useful dialogue with the owner or his representative then it is our intention to call a public meeting in early April to take matters forward.”
The Trust said just three days ago:
“We urge the owner and management of the club to remember that fans are not just customers, but stakeholders in the club. We therefore call upon Roland Duchatelet to as quickly as possible address the fans (ideally in person) on his short and long term plans for improving the club’s situation. We would respectfully suggest that he should make it clear what criteria were applied in the decision to sack Chris Powell; whether a different type of football management system is to be installed; and in this system, who will be held accountable for recruitment and team selection, whether they are based at the Valley or elsewhere. We further ask Mr Duchatelet to clarify whether he expects Charlton to avoid relegation this season with the squad currently available, or whether he acknowledges that the squad must and will be further strengthened with loan signings.”
The only material distinction that I can discern is that the new group is being rather more vigorous and clearly signalling it won’t be fobbed off. That’s a good thing, but I do think the new initiative does somewhat undermine the Trust. It's as if the supporters are saying the Trust can't be trusted (sorry!) with really big issues; this can't help their credibility with the Board as a representative group.
Comments
I think it is always going to be difficult to resist the temptation to be 'flattered' by being invited to be involved with the club. I'm not criticising those in the Trust, but I think the club will take this group much more seriously, and not be inclined to think that a bit of lip service and a few audiences with senior club officials will ensure 'compliance'.
I know there are members of the Trust involved with group, and I am not aiming my comments at anyone specific, but I, certainly, feel that this group have more teeth, and seem more inclined to show them - I suspect that those running the club will recognise this.
Standard Liege/Roland Duchatelet = Russia/Vladimir Putin
Charlton = Ukraine
Powell, Kermogant & Stephens = Crimea (Taken away from Ukraine without Ukraine's consent)
Jose Riga = Yuriy Meshkov (Just a puppet of the Russian regime.)
Football League = UN (Useless talking shop that can't achieve anything and hasn't got a spine.)
CAS Trust = Germany (Supporters of Ukraine but worried that Russia will take their gas supply away if they get too tetchy.)
New Campaign Group = USA (Can't be seen to kowtow to Russia, worried about their own popularity/credibility at home but carries a big stick and wants to impose sanctions on Russia like banning Russia from selling futures in its gas.)
Have I missed anything out? We'll just have to wait to see if Russia/Putin tells the USA it can swivel on it I suppose.
The Trust = Sinn Fein
Supporters Group = IRA
Creating a separate faction of supporters presents an impression of a divided group to me which is surely not what you want. The fact that members of the trust are involved just confuses things further in my view.
If you were the owner would you want to engage with a random group of twenty fans who disagree with you? Whilst I appreciate that the names listed had important roles in previous years and have good contacts you are still just a small number of fans and to me this statement does nothing more than devalue the role of the trust.
The trust wants to be the nice guy and seems to think it will get a proper voice by doing so. If signature collecting is what you are after, you should see the trust, they have that down to a tee.
You probably wouldn't.
The statement is about communication.
We now have Fans Forum, Supporters Trust, Supporters Clubs and "The Free Chris Powell Alliance". My membership of the trust is of a body that i thought would represent the fans on all issues, including this. If the Trust is not willing to take on all issues because they might be sensitive then it should not exist.
If RD is going to speak to the representatives of the fans then his choice is going to be the Trust surely - elected by the fans for the fans?
Personally I have only one issue which will convince me that RD is serious about treating Charlton properly and keeping us in the Championship. He sold Kerm without a replacement lined up. He did not have to sell him then and certainly could have waited until a replacement was on board. We have scored 2 league goals in the last seven matches. If a replacement is not brought in now that alone will be enough to persuade me they do not care which division we are in next season.
Then I will be joining this group.
We do not want to lose our club and I hope you can get Roland, Katrin and even Jose to understand what Charlton stands for.
I don't always agree on everything you post but fair play for actually doing something pro active.
I won't comment on the other questions raised on this thread until the Trust has had a chance to meet and discuss the issue. Needless to say there have been a range of discussions and activities behind the scenes.
Many of the board of the Trust (and its membership) were not involved with the Valley Party and so there is a distinction in the people and their background. How this develops is anyones guess but Life of Brian is one possibility!
“In the first instance, the group is seeking an urgent face-to-face meeting with Roland Duchatelet or Katrien Miere in order try to get a better understanding of the owner’s intentions and report back to the wider support.
If we are unable to enter into a useful dialogue with the owner or his representative then it is our intention to call a public meeting in early April to take matters forward.”
The Trust said just three days ago:
“We urge the owner and management of the club to remember that fans are not just customers, but stakeholders in the club. We therefore call upon Roland Duchatelet to as quickly as possible address the fans (ideally in person) on his short and long term plans for improving the club’s situation. We would respectfully suggest that he should make it clear what criteria were applied in the decision to sack Chris Powell; whether a different type of football management system is to be installed; and in this system, who will be held accountable for recruitment and team selection, whether they are based at the Valley or elsewhere. We further ask Mr Duchatelet to clarify whether he expects Charlton to avoid relegation this season with the squad currently available, or whether he acknowledges that the squad must and will be further strengthened with loan signings.”
The only material distinction that I can discern is that the new group is being rather more vigorous and clearly signalling it won’t be fobbed off. That’s a good thing, but I do think the new initiative does somewhat undermine the Trust. It's as if the supporters are saying the Trust can't be trusted (sorry!) with really big issues; this can't help their credibility with the Board as a representative group.