I was sceptical about G21 and worried that VoTV might cynically use that particular debate to flog extra copy - i.e. pay to read the rationale of the group and not much else. As it turns out, my fears were quite unjustified. For me, it was the best Voice since its re-introduction. Congratulations to AB and all concerned.
In reply to Richard Cawley and 1 other Richard Cawley @RichCawleySLP 48m @airmanbrown I suppose any kind of investment will look like more when you consider how little there was under old regime. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More Richard Cawley @RichCawleySLP 14h Indications also seem to be that #cafc ready to go for it a bit in transfer market in summer if they stay up. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More Rick Everitt @airmanbrown 10h @RichCawleySLP bit of a mixed message since it's also suggested the club wants to move towards breakeven? from Thanet, Kent Reply Retweet Favorite More Richard Cawley @RichCawleySLP 49m @airmanbrown I agree. Person who told me is not involved with club but is well-connected.
As always it is an excellent read and is still, for me, an essential component of Charlton Athletic.
Having been one of those who have questioned the appropriateness of G21, I was particularly interested in understanding the rationale behind it.
The key paragraphs for me come on page 25 ... and hopefully Airman will not object if I reproduce them here.
"It's far from clear, yet, that there is any enemy to fight. All of us want to believe in RD's good intentions and to see the club succeed again, on and off the pitch. If we can help him make that happen then we will. But if something else does eventually prove to be necessary, we'll be ready for that too. Just like 25 years ago."
I support this 100%.
As will we all. However, the rest of us didn't need to form a little elitist club and start a pissing contest with an elected group in lieu of a proper enemy..
In reply to Richard Cawley and 1 other Richard Cawley @RichCawleySLP 48m @airmanbrown I suppose any kind of investment will look like more when you consider how little there was under old regime. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More Richard Cawley @RichCawleySLP 14h Indications also seem to be that #cafc ready to go for it a bit in transfer market in summer if they stay up. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More Rick Everitt @airmanbrown 10h @RichCawleySLP bit of a mixed message since it's also suggested the club wants to move towards breakeven? from Thanet, Kent Reply Retweet Favorite More Richard Cawley @RichCawleySLP 49m @airmanbrown I agree. Person who told me is not involved with club but is well-connected.
Does this mean a public meeting will now occur in April as per the OP? My own personal view that it is good the club have responded and concentrate on the real job in hand, staying up
Does this mean a public meeting will now occur in April as per the OP? My own personal view that it is good the club have responded and concentrate on the real job in hand, staying up
Katrien is our new winger while Roland will be the target man we're crying out for. That's why they're busy keeping us up.
Edit:...and Richard Murray will just do whatever he's told.
Seems to me that between the announcement of the formation of the elitist few and their opening statement, and the publication of the Votv things have been toned down somewhat.....maybe that's another reason for their silence during this period to guage reaction? Call me cynical but a St boycott has been toned down to a delay....yeah righto. I still don't get why they felt they needed to issue threats before the club had any chance to reply.
Seems to me that between the announcement of the formation of the elitist few and their opening statement, and the publication of the Votv things have been toned down somewhat.....maybe that's another reason for their silence during this period to guage reaction? Call me cynical but a St boycott has been toned down to a delay....yeah righto. I still don't get why they felt they needed to issue threats before the club had any chance to reply.
Is suggesting a public meeting if the club showed an unwillingness to engage with fans an 'issuing of a threat'?
Is suggesting a public meeting if the club showed an unwillingness to engage with fans an 'issuing of a threat'?
No, but this is, Seth
The purpose of the meeting was to try to establish a temporary umbrella group from which to seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club, and if that does not prove possible then to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events.
Threat ....... A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
Threat ....... A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
Have I missed something?
Quite possibly.
If that does not prove possible then (or if he doesn't do what we are asking) then (retribution) to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events (veiled threat of hostile action - do we expect the G21 to interpret this as sending RD a bunch of flowers?).
It's not an explicit threat but it is definitely a veiled threat by inference.
Threat ....... A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
Have I missed something?
Quite possibly.
If that does not prove possible then (or if he doesn't do what we are asking) then (retribution) to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events (veiled threat of hostile action - do we expect the G21 to interpret this as sending RD a bunch of flowers?).
It's not an explicit threat but it is definitely a veiled threat by inference.
I respect that you have shown how you interpret the statement as threatening, but I disagree. The things you see as veiled, are balanced by the open desire stated to 'seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club'. It may be, as discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, that the G21 ought to 'know their place', but the statement is a million miles away from signalling the arrival of the outriders of the Apocolypse
Threat ....... A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
Have I missed something?
Quite possibly.
If that does not prove possible then (or if he doesn't do what we are asking) then (retribution) to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events (veiled threat of hostile action - do we expect the G21 to interpret this as sending RD a bunch of flowers?).
It's not an explicit threat but it is definitely a veiled threat by inference.
I respect that you have shown how you interpret the statement as threatening, but I disagree. The things you see as veiled, are balanced by the open desire stated to 'seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club'. It may be, as discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, that the G21 ought to 'know their place', but the statement is a million miles away from signalling the arrival of the outriders of the Apocolypse
I would like you to stop doing that because it worries me and I would like to talk with you openly about a better way forward - but if you don't I'll rip your gonads off and wear them as ear rings. Not sure that's balanced.
Now I didn't say that the veiled threat involved white, red, black and pale hoving into view - but the statement infers consequences if RD wasn't prepared to enter into dialogue.
My opinion, Seth - don't expect you to agree with me.
The more I read this thread the more convinced I am that G21 are annoyed/disappointed that they have had a positive response from the club. I'll also wager that they weren't expecting to get any criticism on here.
They were spoiling for a fight and a chance relive former glories.
Threat ....... A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
Have I missed something?
Quite possibly.
If that does not prove possible then (or if he doesn't do what we are asking) then (retribution) to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events (veiled threat of hostile action - do we expect the G21 to interpret this as sending RD a bunch of flowers?).
It's not an explicit threat but it is definitely a veiled threat by inference.
I respect that you have shown how you interpret the statement as threatening, but I disagree. The things you see as veiled, are balanced by the open desire stated to 'seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club'. It may be, as discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, that the G21 ought to 'know their place', but the statement is a million miles away from signalling the arrival of the outriders of the Apocolypse
I would like you to stop doing that because it worries me and I would like to talk with you openly about a better way forward - but if you don't I'll rip your gonads off and wear them as ear rings. Not sure that's balanced.
Now I didn't say that the veiled threat involved white, red, black and pale hoving into view - but the statement infers consequences if RD wasn't prepared to enter into dialogue.
My opinion, Seth - don't expect you to agree with me.
From the first time I read the statement and every time I've read it since it sounds like a threat. There is no ambiguity in my mind. The April deadline makes it sound like it is not only a demand with menaces but there is only so long before those menaces start.
I admire you for sticking to your position Seth, but in the event that none of us know exactly what the 'threat' meant I think we have to accept that people will make their own judgments. Even though I would not argue with any of the signatories if they told me there was no threat, I will never be convinced that it doesn't read like there is one.
Didn't the person writing that post also create a thread saying that we should withhold all season ticket renewals until the board communicated with us?
Threat ....... A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
Have I missed something?
Quite possibly.
If that does not prove possible then (or if he doesn't do what we are asking) then (retribution) to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events (veiled threat of hostile action - do we expect the G21 to interpret this as sending RD a bunch of flowers?).
It's not an explicit threat but it is definitely a veiled threat by inference.
I respect that you have shown how you interpret the statement as threatening, but I disagree. The things you see as veiled, are balanced by the open desire stated to 'seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club'. It may be, as discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, that the G21 ought to 'know their place', but the statement is a million miles away from signalling the arrival of the outriders of the Apocolypse
I would like you to stop doing that because it worries me and I would like to talk with you openly about a better way forward - but if you don't I'll rip your gonads off and wear them as ear rings. Not sure that's balanced.
Now I didn't say that the veiled threat involved white, red, black and pale hoving into view - but the statement infers consequences if RD wasn't prepared to enter into dialogue.
My opinion, Seth - don't expect you to agree with me.
From the first time I read the statement and every time I've read it since it sounds like a threat. There is no ambiguity in my mind. The April deadline makes it sound like it is not only a demand with menaces but there is only so long before those menaces start.
I admire you for sticking to your position Seth, but in the event that none of us know exactly what the 'threat' meant I think we have to accept that people will make their own judgments. Even though I would not argue with any of the signatories if they told me there was no threat, I will never be convinced that it doesn't read like there is one.
The April deadline regarding clarity is because the early season ticket renewals close by April 9th and I suppose people wanted to make more informed decisions by that date.
I guess all of us are, to differing extents, guilty of seeing only what we want to see. It's just that I have a lot of time for Airman. It doesn't mean I agree with everything he says, but when the chips are down and they ask 'which side are you on?', I'll opt for Airman's side. I truly can't see what he said that was threatening, ( we obviously differ on what we construe as threatening). Airman doesn't do diplomacy, we all know that, but I actually quite like that as I am totally fed up with corporate PR speak and weasel words. For me, the G21 were saying that we need to be prepared for all possible scenarios. That just strikes me as sensible politics.
Along with the season ticket deadline, the other clarity obtained is about the loan window and results on the pitch! If we had failed to sign anyone and secured just two 0-0 draws from the first three games under Riga instead of five points then the landscape would be very toxic indeed. When one is putting together a strategy one has to think about events which will happen including those one can influence and those one can't. Mention of season ticket boycotts (or strikes) is another element to this strategy together with attacks on the commercial management over the mistake to seek to compel movement of fans to move (quickly rescinded). If I am incorrect in that there was no strategy then perhaps this is worse?! With hindsight I think the strategy was overly aggressive but there were only two options open on the field - either the managment switch to Riga was going to increase chances of staying up or it wouldn't. There are only two ways this can go - we stay up or we don't ... relegation was avoidable and many fans wanted more done in January. Occasional 1-0 wins are giving us breathing space and we will know more about our chances after the Yeovil and Barnsley games.
Threat ....... A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
Have I missed something?
Quite possibly.
If that does not prove possible then (or if he doesn't do what we are asking) then (retribution) to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events (veiled threat of hostile action - do we expect the G21 to interpret this as sending RD a bunch of flowers?).
It's not an explicit threat but it is definitely a veiled threat by inference.
I respect that you have shown how you interpret the statement as threatening, but I disagree. The things you see as veiled, are balanced by the open desire stated to 'seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club'. It may be, as discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, that the G21 ought to 'know their place', but the statement is a million miles away from signalling the arrival of the outriders of the Apocolypse
I would like you to stop doing that because it worries me and I would like to talk with you openly about a better way forward - but if you don't I'll rip your gonads off and wear them as ear rings. Not sure that's balanced.
Now I didn't say that the veiled threat involved white, red, black and pale hoving into view - but the statement infers consequences if RD wasn't prepared to enter into dialogue.
My opinion, Seth - don't expect you to agree with me.
From the first time I read the statement and every time I've read it since it sounds like a threat. There is no ambiguity in my mind. The April deadline makes it sound like it is not only a demand with menaces but there is only so long before those menaces start.
I admire you for sticking to your position Seth, but in the event that none of us know exactly what the 'threat' meant I think we have to accept that people will make their own judgments. Even though I would not argue with any of the signatories if they told me there was no threat, I will never be convinced that it doesn't read like there is one.
The April deadline regarding clarity is because the early season ticket renewals close by April 9th and I suppose people wanted to make more informed decisions by that date.
By demanding a meeting before the season ticket deadline what possible outcome could that imply?
"We want you to explain yourself to us before we decide if we are going to buy a season ticket or not!" ?????
How, on earth, can that not be a threat along the lines of: if we don't like what you say we will not buy a season ticket?
'The supporters group want the club to thrive including getting as many bums on seats as possible for everybody's benefit. There are worries at the moment that events will put off season ticket holders from renewing before April 9th, so it is felt that by seeking communication and clarification as soon as possible it will put the minds of waverers at rest and they will happily renew...for everybody's benefit'
There you go, a different conclusion to be drawn from the supporters statement. I also think one that sits well with the urge to seek 'constructive and positive dialogue' which is explicitly written in the statement.
Mind you the notion you have that I look a little foolish most of the time is probably true, so no offence taken at your little personal dig.
'The supporters group want the club to thrive including getting as many bums on seats as possible for everybody's benefit. There are worries at the moment that events will put off season ticket holders from renewing before April 9th, so it is felt that by seeking communication and clarification as soon as possible it will put the minds of waverers at rest and they will happily renew...for everybody's benefit'
There you go, a different conclusion to be drawn from the supporters statement. I also think one that sits well with the urge to seek 'constructive and positive dialogue' which is explicitly written in the statement.
Mind you the notion you have that I look a little foolish most of the time is probably true, so no offence taken at your little personal dig.
Sorry Seth, I didn't read that paragraph when I read the statement. You're right that wording is completely different from what I thought I read and had I not missed it I would have found the whole statement to have been both a different tone and a lot less threatening.
My recollection was that the statement said something a little more like:
'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.'
My recollection does make me think it's a threat, the section you've highlighted clearly doesn't. For that reason I withdraw my suggestion that you are trying to convince me of something that isn't there. I now understand why you believe that the group's statement was not threatening.
'The supporters group want the club to thrive including getting as many bums on seats as possible for everybody's benefit. There are worries at the moment that events will put off season ticket holders from renewing before April 9th, so it is felt that by seeking communication and clarification as soon as possible it will put the minds of waverers at rest and they will happily renew...for everybody's benefit'
There you go, a different conclusion to be drawn from the supporters statement. I also think one that sits well with the urge to seek 'constructive and positive dialogue' which is explicitly written in the statement.
Mind you the notion you have that I look a little foolish most of the time is probably true, so no offence taken at your little personal dig.
The statement didn't say that though Seth.
The statement along with the recommendation of a ST boycott was put out as an impied threat to the new owner - plain and simple.
It's a bit pointless for you to continue to deny that.
Comments
Richard Cawley @RichCawleySLP 48m
@airmanbrown I suppose any kind of investment will look like more when you consider how little there was under old regime.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Richard Cawley @RichCawleySLP 14h
Indications also seem to be that #cafc ready to go for it a bit in transfer market in summer if they stay up.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Rick Everitt @airmanbrown 10h
@RichCawleySLP bit of a mixed message since it's also suggested the club wants to move towards breakeven?
from Thanet, Kent Reply Retweet Favorite More
Richard Cawley @RichCawleySLP 49m
@airmanbrown I agree. Person who told me is not involved with club but is well-connected.
Edit:...and Richard Murray will just do whatever he's told.
The purpose of the meeting was to try to establish a temporary umbrella group from which to seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club, and if that does not prove possible then to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events.
Have I missed something?
If that does not prove possible then (or if he doesn't do what we are asking) then (retribution) to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events (veiled threat of hostile action - do we expect the G21 to interpret this as sending RD a bunch of flowers?).
It's not an explicit threat but it is definitely a veiled threat by inference.
It may be, as discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, that the G21 ought to 'know their place', but the statement is a million miles away from signalling the arrival of the outriders of the Apocolypse
Now I didn't say that the veiled threat involved white, red, black and pale hoving into view - but the statement infers consequences if RD wasn't prepared to enter into dialogue.
My opinion, Seth - don't expect you to agree with me.
They were spoiling for a fight and a chance relive former glories.
All based on the sacking of the manager.
I admire you for sticking to your position Seth, but in the event that none of us know exactly what the 'threat' meant I think we have to accept that people will make their own judgments. Even though I would not argue with any of the signatories if they told me there was no threat, I will never be convinced that it doesn't read like there is one.
Sounds like a threat to me...
If I am incorrect in that there was no strategy then perhaps this is worse?!
With hindsight I think the strategy was overly aggressive but there were only two options open on the field - either the managment switch to Riga was going to increase chances of staying up or it wouldn't.
There are only two ways this can go - we stay up or we don't ... relegation was avoidable and many fans wanted more done in January. Occasional 1-0 wins are giving us breathing space and we will know more about our chances after the Yeovil and Barnsley games.
"We want you to explain yourself to us before we decide if we are going to buy a season ticket or not!" ?????
How, on earth, can that not be a threat along the lines of: if we don't like what you say we will not buy a season ticket?
However, I, personally, find it difficult to take the Supporters' statement and conclude anything other than a threat.
Try this one.
'The supporters group want the club to thrive including getting as many bums on seats as possible for everybody's benefit. There are worries at the moment that events will put off season ticket holders from renewing before April 9th, so it is felt that by seeking communication and clarification as soon as possible it will put the minds of waverers at rest and they will happily renew...for everybody's benefit'
There you go, a different conclusion to be drawn from the supporters statement. I also think one that sits well with the urge to seek 'constructive and positive dialogue' which is explicitly written in the statement.
Mind you the notion you have that I look a little foolish most of the time is probably true, so no offence taken at your little personal dig.
My recollection was that the statement said something a little more like:
'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.'
My recollection does make me think it's a threat, the section you've highlighted clearly doesn't. For that reason I withdraw my suggestion that you are trying to convince me of something that isn't there. I now understand why you believe that the group's statement was not threatening.
I apologise for my earlier comments!
The statement along with the recommendation of a ST boycott was put out as an impied threat to the new owner - plain and simple.
It's a bit pointless for you to continue to deny that.