'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.
I apologise for my earlier comments!
When I said 'try this one', I did not intend to suggest that it was a paragraph in the supporters statement, it was an attempt to infer that the statement could be interpreted with a different conclusion to it being a 'threat'.
I really do apologise that I didn't make it more obvious, and putting quotations makes it worse.
It was my intention to say that the supporters statement could just as easily be taken as helpful as much as it could be taken as threatening.
If there was a recommendation of a season ticket boycott it wasn't in the statement either.
It is much more about the events post Sheffield United making people question at the time what exactly they would be supporting in the future, and that would inform their season ticket purchase.
I would love to see 24,000 season ticket holders packing out the Valley every match, but we have steadily bled support over recent years, and I feel sure that a motivator for the original statement was more about a thriving club than an attack on Mr Duchatelet or any threat.
What could possibly be gained by hostility towards Mr Duchatelet? That he would quickly sell the club on? That he would close the club down? That he would reinstate Chris Powell and former employees? That he would allow a clique of supporters to make decisions about how he would run his club? That he would change his own decisions because of supporter unease?
I understand the constituency that sees the statement as an implied threat, I really do. However I believe that most people are moved to take action because they want to see Charlton Athletic do well, not to settle old scores, or to seek self aggrandisement.
The supporters statement is in my view more about trying to be positive than trying to make threats for the reasons I have said.
'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.
Please see my response above.
Apologies if I made you or anybody think they had missed something in the original statement that wasn't there, just as the ST boycott wasn't there either.
'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.
Please see my response above.
Apologies if I made you or anybody think they had missed something in the original statement that wasn't there, just as the ST boycott wasn't there either.
'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.
Please see my response above.
Apologies if I made you or anybody think they had missed something in the original statement that wasn't there, just as the ST boycott wasn't there either.
Yes, the view of Airman, who was also a signatory to the supporters statement, that view may have been shared by other signatory's too. I can see why you make the link, but the statement is the statement, and there were over twenty signatory's. The Charlton life thread was not started by everybody who signed the supporters statement was it?
If the members of the 21 don't want to bother clarifying what they meant or what they want to do next why would other people bother to try and second guess for them? In my opinion they have shown us fans more contempt than Roland ever has.
'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.
Please see my response above.
Apologies if I made you or anybody think they had missed something in the original statement that wasn't there, just as the ST boycott wasn't there either.
Yes, the view of Airman, who was also a signatory to the supporters statement, that view may have been shared by other signatory's too. I can see why you make the link, but the statement is the statement, and there were over twenty signatory's. The Charlton life thread was not started by everybody who signed the supporters statement was it?
I do acknowledge that this is only one signatory's view and not the supporters group as a whole. Just showing that it wouldn't be a large leap to think that a threat is implied when the spokesman for the group is the same person already calling for a season ticket strike from all supporters.
However, with the admission from the board that they need to meet supporters group in the close season (or something along those lines), I very much doubt we'll need such action to be taken so this whole point has been a bit overblown.
Seth - there was no meaningful attempt by Airman to discuss an approach with the supporters Trust - an organisation with 1,000 members and 5,000 email / twitter contacts. It was an understandable reaction to the sacking of Chris Powell who was far, far more than a manager of CAFC. The simple facts are that rather than lose vs Huddersfield and Millwall which would have led to a very toxic freefall situation, we have gone on to gain 8 points from six games and there is all to play for...so threats of "come to the table or else" have been dismissed. And rightly so IMHO! For how much respect would CAFC command in the national game if they turned around and said to a group of activists from 25 years ago "Ok see you in the Oak"
It could equally be seen as a threat by the owner to the independence and ambition of this club when he states get used to the idea your best players will be sold and his management of a club in his stable, we can have the best players we want from CAFC. Its not about the winning etc.
It could equally be seen as a threat by the owner to the independence and ambition of this club when he states get used to the idea your best players will be sold and his management of a club in his stable, we can have the best players we want from CAFC. Its not about the winning etc.
We can't have independence - that costs money and the club didn't have any.
4760 Network total (includes possible duplicates across channels - except between members and subscribers, fully lapsed members are removed from both these groups)
Raz/Pico In those figures have you taken any account of the strong likelihood of either double or even triple counting of Members who are also Tweeters and/or Facebook likes?
working on it, won't be resting on laurels but at the same time it's a good level to aim for which we did. We don't want to pursue members over substance though, so it will require some thought. Our next AGM isn't due until November I believe.
Very impressive figures razil. Does the trust have a clear strategy to increase membership numbers
My personal opinion is that we will struggle to get above 1,500 unless a clear existential threat to the club emerges. I am waiting for some benchmarks from Supporters Direct regarding comparable numbers at other clubs. But I know that Swansea have less than 1000 paying members. Normally only a small percentage of fans of any club care much about more than what they see on the pitch ( and buy at the bar at half time)
Seth - there was no meaningful attempt by Airman to discuss an approach with the supporters Trust - an organisation with 1,000 members and 5,000 email / twitter contacts. It was an understandable reaction to the sacking of Chris Powell who was far, far more than a manager of CAFC. The simple facts are that rather than lose vs Huddersfield and Millwall which would have led to a very toxic freefall situation, we have gone on to gain 8 points from six games and there is all to play for...so threats of "come to the table or else" have been dismissed. And rightly so IMHO! For how much respect would CAFC command in the national game if they turned around and said to a group of activists from 25 years ago "Ok see you in the Oak"
I haven't pursued this issue because I have no wish to exacerbate the subsequent split within the trust, but this is categorically untrue and you must know that. Everyone who was involved in the meeting in the Royal Oak knows that the chair of the trust was present and did not dissent from the statement. I have a whole series of email exchanges with Barnie and Prague that would show the extent of the trust's involvement.
It's all about retaining members and recruiting new ones. Before I left the Trust Board we were very keen to retain the first 300 members who joined Dec 2012 - Feb 2013. And this worked. This season the Trust presence has grown online and outside the North Stand so membership has continued to grow. Most importantly 40-50% of the fans are not interested in the Trust meaning that 50%+ are...and the Trust has already reached 4,000 out of a potential interest of 12,500 (assuming 25,000 regular fans at the Valley) The future size of the Trust can really only be determined at the end of next season, once there has been time to contact most fans and establish the Trust. Other Trusts have been going ten years whereas there appears to have been a long gap since there was anything big/central in SE7. Therefore what happens at the Club between now and May 2015 AND what the Trust does in the next 12 months in terms of message, content and activity will ultimately dictate the number of members and subscribers. Not for me to set any target - all I am saying is that if the overall reach continues to expand then it becomes harder for the club to ignore it.
Seth - there was no meaningful attempt by Airman to discuss an approach with the supporters Trust - an organisation with 1,000 members and 5,000 email / twitter contacts. It was an understandable reaction to the sacking of Chris Powell who was far, far more than a manager of CAFC. The simple facts are that rather than lose vs Huddersfield and Millwall which would have led to a very toxic freefall situation, we have gone on to gain 8 points from six games and there is all to play for...so threats of "come to the table or else" have been dismissed. And rightly so IMHO! For how much respect would CAFC command in the national game if they turned around and said to a group of activists from 25 years ago "Ok see you in the Oak"
I haven't pursued this issue because I have no wish to exacerbate the subsequent split within the trust, but this is categorically untrue and you must know that. Everyone who was involved in the meeting in the Royal Oak knows that the chair of the trust was present and did not dissent from the statement. I have a whole series of email exchanges with Barnie and Prague that would show the extent of the trust's involvement.
AB - this is the problem though. By heading up the G21, you have "split" the Charlton support, and taken something away from the Trust, whether they in themselves have an internal split or not. What we should be endeavouring to do is all support the club and get behind our efforts to stave off relegation, and not bad mouthing everything RD ever says or diessecting it so that we find hidden meaning where none is intended.
Our new owner - RD - and directors (KM and RM) have all been quite communicative of intended policy since taking over the club three months ago. This is a massive improvement on the 5-year plan (that wasn't) days of Slater and Jiminez. Any attempt to get clique meetings to better understand policy, changes to management reversed, or any such things was never going to happen, and nor should it.
This club is owned by Staprix, and it is them who call the shots, but it is still our club; mentally "owned" by all of us fans.
I am a massive fan of all you have done for CAFC over the 30-odd years since we used to travel to away games on the train all over the country - you are a better fan than I ever will be.
But the onus must now be on one of togetherness, and not devisiveness, be that within the fan base or the higher echelons of the club.
It would therefore be ironic for me to continue to buy a season ticket when you yourself will not.
Forget ST strikes; forget all the splitting of support, both within the Trust and oustide in the real world; forget trying to get more than you ever will from a meeting with RD. Let's all get behind the team and hope for three more points tonight. COYA!
Seth - there was no meaningful attempt by Airman to discuss an approach with the supporters Trust - an organisation with 1,000 members and 5,000 email / twitter contacts. It was an understandable reaction to the sacking of Chris Powell who was far, far more than a manager of CAFC. The simple facts are that rather than lose vs Huddersfield and Millwall which would have led to a very toxic freefall situation, we have gone on to gain 8 points from six games and there is all to play for...so threats of "come to the table or else" have been dismissed. And rightly so IMHO! For how much respect would CAFC command in the national game if they turned around and said to a group of activists from 25 years ago "Ok see you in the Oak"
I haven't pursued this issue because I have no wish to exacerbate the subsequent split within the trust, but this is categorically untrue and you must know that. Everyone who was involved in the meeting in the Royal Oak knows that the chair of the trust was present and did not dissent from the statement. I have a whole series of email exchanges with Barnie and Prague that would show the extent of the trust's involvement.
AB - this is the problem though. By heading up the G21, you have "split" the Charlton support, and taken something away from the Trust, whether they in themselves have an internal split or not. What we should be endeavouring to do is all support the club and get behind our efforts to stave off relegation, and not bad mouthing everything RD ever says or diessecting it so that we find hidden meaning where none is intended.
Our new owner - RD - and directors (KM and RM) have all been quite communicative of intended policy since taking over the club three months ago. This is a massive improvement on the 5-year plan (that wasn't) days of Slater and Jiminez. Any attempt to get clique meetings to better understand policy, changes to management reversed, or any such things was never going to happen, and nor should it.
This club is owned by Staprix, and it is them who call the shots, but it is still our club; mentally "owned" by all of us fans.
I am a massive fan of all you have done for CAFC over the 30-odd years since we used to travel to away games on the train all over the country - you are a better fan than I ever will be.
But the onus must now be on one of togetherness, and not devisiveness, be that within the fan base or the higher echelons of the club.
It would therefore be ironic for me to continue to buy a season ticket when you yourself will not.
Forget ST strikes; forget all the splitting of support, both within the Trust and oustide in the real world; forget trying to get more than you ever will from a meeting with RD. Let's all get behind the team and hope for three more points tonight. COYA!
Here's the problem with that: "by heading up the G21". I did not and do not head up the group and I do not speak for it. I was approached by others and agreed to participate in a group only on the basis that it was as widely drawn as possible - that included the trust, which was fully involved up to and including the issue of the statement. The group sought to include the trust (and others) and believed it included the trust because it was given no reason to think otherwise. Quite the opposite, because the chair of the trust participated in the meeting and then sought to persuade other trust board members of the merits of the statement. That was the basis on which the statement was put together and agreed. The trust then divided over whether it should be part of the group, meaning that part of the trust board wanted to be able to veto what everyone else had agreed. I have no criticism to make of anyone over what happened, it was an honest disagreement about tactics within the trust, but it is nonsense to believe that the group was in any way conceived as a threat to the trust or acted to undermine it.
But AB, you posted the statement, and you are therefore perceived by most on CL to be the "leader". If anyone else in the G21 (be it a Trust board member or not) had posted it, then the debate would have been a lot less intense (even with you as a signatory).
Ultimately, Charlton Athletic (not just the FC, but as a whole) require the Trust, G21, Fans Forum, Supporter's Clubs, and any other CAFC fan group to pull together at this time.
Please do as KM suggested in her email and let this whole matter lie until the summer, when it can be better digested.
But AB, you posted the statement, and you are therefore perceived by most on CL to be the "leader". If anyone else in the G21 (be it a Trust board member or not) had posted it, then the debate would have been a lot less intense (even with you as a signatory).
Ultimately, Charlton Athletic (not just the FC, but as a whole) require the Trust, G21, Fans Forum, Supporter's Clubs, and any other CAFC fan group to pull together at this time.
Please do as KM suggested in her email and let this whole matter lie until the summer, when it can be better digested.
I agree with all of that. There were particular practical reasons why I ended up posting it, but it would have been better done by someone else.
Comments
I really do apologise that I didn't make it more obvious, and putting quotations makes it worse.
It was my intention to say that the supporters statement could just as easily be taken as helpful as much as it could be taken as threatening.
If there was a recommendation of a season ticket boycott it wasn't in the statement either.
It is much more about the events post Sheffield United making people question at the time what exactly they would be supporting in the future, and that would inform their season ticket purchase.
I would love to see 24,000 season ticket holders packing out the Valley every match, but we have steadily bled support over recent years, and I feel sure that a motivator for the original statement was more about a thriving club than an attack on Mr Duchatelet or any threat.
What could possibly be gained by hostility towards Mr Duchatelet? That he would quickly sell the club on? That he would close the club down? That he would reinstate Chris Powell and former employees? That he would allow a clique of supporters to make decisions about how he would run his club? That he would change his own decisions because of supporter unease?
I understand the constituency that sees the statement as an implied threat, I really do. However I believe that most people are moved to take action because they want to see Charlton Athletic do well, not to settle old scores, or to seek self aggrandisement.
The supporters statement is in my view more about trying to be positive than trying to make threats for the reasons I have said.
Apologies if I made you or anybody think they had missed something in the original statement that wasn't there, just as the ST boycott wasn't there either.
The Charlton life thread was not started by everybody who signed the supporters statement was it?
However, with the admission from the board that they need to meet supporters group in the close season (or something along those lines), I very much doubt we'll need such action to be taken so this whole point has been a bit overblown.
The simple facts are that rather than lose vs Huddersfield and Millwall which would have led to a very toxic freefall situation, we have gone on to gain 8 points from six games and there is all to play for...so threats of "come to the table or else" have been dismissed. And rightly so IMHO! For how much respect would CAFC command in the national game if they turned around and said to a group of activists from 25 years ago "Ok see you in the Oak"
1642 followers
Its on the CAS Trust website
Now
1037 members
1745 subscribers (uptodate)
1642 followers
336 likes
4760 Network total (includes possible duplicates across channels - except between members and subscribers, fully lapsed members are removed from both these groups)
In those figures have you taken any account of the strong likelihood of either double or even triple counting of Members who are also Tweeters and/or Facebook likes?
Most importantly 40-50% of the fans are not interested in the Trust meaning that 50%+ are...and the Trust has already reached 4,000 out of a potential interest of 12,500 (assuming 25,000 regular fans at the Valley)
The future size of the Trust can really only be determined at the end of next season, once there has been time to contact most fans and establish the Trust. Other Trusts have been going ten years whereas there appears to have been a long gap since there was anything big/central in SE7.
Therefore what happens at the Club between now and May 2015 AND what the Trust does in the next 12 months in terms of message, content and activity will ultimately dictate the number of members and subscribers.
Not for me to set any target - all I am saying is that if the overall reach continues to expand then it becomes harder for the club to ignore it.
Our new owner - RD - and directors (KM and RM) have all been quite communicative of intended policy since taking over the club three months ago. This is a massive improvement on the 5-year plan (that wasn't) days of Slater and Jiminez. Any attempt to get clique meetings to better understand policy, changes to management reversed, or any such things was never going to happen, and nor should it.
This club is owned by Staprix, and it is them who call the shots, but it is still our club; mentally "owned" by all of us fans.
I am a massive fan of all you have done for CAFC over the 30-odd years since we used to travel to away games on the train all over the country - you are a better fan than I ever will be.
But the onus must now be on one of togetherness, and not devisiveness, be that within the fan base or the higher echelons of the club.
It would therefore be ironic for me to continue to buy a season ticket when you yourself will not.
Forget ST strikes; forget all the splitting of support, both within the Trust and oustide in the real world; forget trying to get more than you ever will from a meeting with RD. Let's all get behind the team and hope for three more points tonight. COYA!
Ultimately, Charlton Athletic (not just the FC, but as a whole) require the Trust, G21, Fans Forum, Supporter's Clubs, and any other CAFC fan group to pull together at this time.
Please do as KM suggested in her email and let this whole matter lie until the summer, when it can be better digested.