Statement from supporters meeting

Athletico Charlton

I absolutely agree that this appears to undermine the Trust. Would seem to me to have made more sense for a joint effort here. I am a big supporter of having a Trust and have liked the work and communications from the Trust to date. Too many different groups just waters down any argument IMO.

At the end of the day however I just wish to see a successful and 'independent' CAFC so if this helps achieve that so be it i guess.

Addickted

Killarahales said:

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.

True - but that was generally in partnership with a supportative Board at the time.

Whereas now, RD can just say "My Club, my rules".

Then what?

grumpyaddick

Just what we need; another self-appointed, self-important, self-congratulatory body telling the plebs what's going on at the top table.

Roland must be quivering in his slippers.

PL54

grumpyaddick said:

Just what we need; another self-appointed, self-important, self-congratulatory body telling the plebs what's going on at the top table.

Roland must be quivering in his slippers.

Roland loves being told what to do and people taking a hard line with him - ask Powell

StevieK

Has the Trust (or any other group of fans) ever attempted to communicate with RD or KM on a formal basis and been knocked back then?

seriously_red

stilladdicted said:

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.

The Trust has a dialogue with the club - I spoke with Richard Murray briefly last night. We have met Katrien and have requested another meeting.
For those questioning the value of surveys we can tell you the precise percentage of fans who are less willing to buy a Season ticket now or how fans rate the decision. I find that kind of research fairly useful when one talks to the club.

Dansk_Red

What may have him quivering in his slippers is the fall in the number of supporters attending matches, the game on wendsday had the lowest gate for a league game this season at the Valley or was this just a coincidence?

kentred2

seth plum said:

kigelia said:

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?'

You probably wouldn't.

The statement is about communication

This is not any old group of twenty fans.

Clem_Snide

seriously_red said:

stilladdicted said:

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.

The Trust has a dialogue with the club - I spoke with Richard Murray briefly last night. We have met Katrien and have requested another meeting.
For those questioning the value of surveys we can tell you the precise percentage of fans who are less willing to buy a Season ticket now or how fans rate the decision. I find that kind of research fairly useful when one talks to the club.

No. You can't actually provide a precise figure. What you can do is provide a percentage based on the number of responses. As you have already said a 1000 responses to the Powell survey was the most you've ever had. Hardly representative.

I might be wide of the mark, but the longer the trust has been running the cosier it seems to have got with the club.

Before I get the standard "if you don't like it, you sign up and offer your time" response that you guys seem to give when challenged, I'll say now, regardless of this response I actually don't care that much what you do. Certainly not enough to get involved.

But just about enough to get slightly narked by this claim.......

The Red Robin

seriously_red said:

The Red Robin said:

Has the trust actually taken any action so far?

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!

I just hope you guys continue as you are and stay independent of the club and challenge situations like this week.

DRAddick

Clem_Snide said:

seriously_red said:

stilladdicted said:

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.

The Trust has a dialogue with the club - I spoke with Richard Murray briefly last night. We have met Katrien and have requested another meeting.
For those questioning the value of surveys we can tell you the precise percentage of fans who are less willing to buy a Season ticket now or how fans rate the decision. I find that kind of research fairly useful when one talks to the club.

No. You can't actually provide a precise figure. What you can do is provide a percentage based on the number of responses. As you have already said a 1000 responses to the Powell survey was the most you've ever had. Hardly representative.

I might be wide of the mark, but the longer the trust has been running the cosier it seems to have got with the club.

Before I get the standard "if you don't like it, you sign up and offer your time" response that you guys seem to give when challenged, I'll say now, regardless of this response I actually don't care that much what you do. Certainly not enough to get involved.

But just about enough to get slightly narked by this claim.......

You've just described every survey and their use since surveys began.

Kap10

kentred2 said:

seth plum said:

kigelia said:

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?'

You probably wouldn't.

The statement is about communication

This is not any old group of twenty fans.

Its an M&S group of 20 fans!

@serious_red is it worth talking to Murray these days .. seems to me that he has little to do with the running or direction of the club. Tells us how the club is safe in the hands of TJ & MS and then RD, just blows in the direction that the wind blows now, slowly but surely undermining his perceived status as a legend. the best he could do is pay for a season ticket and exit stage left. And the Trust to not waste valuable oxygen on him.

Airman Brown

Thanks for the comments. To be clear, I am not a spokesman for the group, but in my view the distinction from the trust is that this is a task and finish group with no structure and no long-term ambition other than to respond to the current situation as we perceive it.

We have sought to bring together as many interested parties as possible rather than just leave it to the trust board, which is an accountable organisation and as such will need to represent various strands of opinion, as do posters on Charlton Life.

We're in amicable dialogue with the trust board, some of have signed the statement, and I believe they are clear this is not an attempt to usurp or challenge them or anyone else. Otherwise I don't really want to expand on the statement, other than to confirm that it has the explicit agreement of all the undersigned.

seriously_red

Sure 40% of fans say not interested and you are clearly one. But that means 60% are interested and many of those have joined or supplied email addresses to be kept in touch.
On those 1,000 surveys there are probably 500 comments from fans who sit in all parts of the ground and first started supporting the club at different times.
I think the cozy thing with the club is a perception held by many because we chose in our first year not to bash the club week in week out. Fans told us this is not what they wanted. I may be wrong but I believe that this adds more weight to the occasions when the Trust does choose to criticise the club. Over the pitch, communications, and now this.

kentaddick

but but but you don't represent all charlton fans, what about the ones that are massive egomaniacs and can't be arsed to represent themselves except behind a keyboard and a username.

Anyone with a problem with this view should meet me in an alleyway, blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs. Then we'll see who is more willing to say stuff to people's faces. Charlton life? More like Charlton NO life hurr hurr hurr.

Davo55

stilladdicted said:

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.

Good initiative, so well done and thanks to those involved.

But I completely disagree that this Group and the Trust have different aims. Establishing dialogue with RD and gaining clarity on his intentions is surely the route to take if we want to engage on a much broader agenda.

If The Valley is an Asset of Community Value, then surely CAFC itself is even more so.

As a member of the Trust (and one who has renewed without being hassled) I'm disappointed that the Trust has not stepped into the fray before now, not to oppose RD but to seek clarification on the somewhat inconsistent messages coming out about our autonomy.

Nothing personal to the guys running the Trust, but I can't see a lot of value in the Trust if it takes a back seat in this most important issue.

Kap10

Airman Brown said:

Thanks for the comments. To be clear, I am not a spokesman for the group, but in my view the distinction from the trust is that this is a task and finish group with no structure and no long-term ambition other than to respond to the current situation as we perceive it.

We have sought to bring together as many interested parties as possible rather than just leave it to the trust board, which is an accountable organisation and as such will need to represent various strands of opinion, as do posters on Charlton Life.

We're in amicable dialogue with the trust board, some of have signed the statement, and I believe they are clear this is not an attempt to usurp or challenge them or anyone else. Otherwise I don't really want to expand on the statement, other than to confirm that it has the explicit agreement of all the undersigned.

I understand what you are saying, however i do not think this will benefit the perception of the Trust. Those on here have the benefit of Trust and the breakaway group (try and give yourselves a name) posting explanations and even then those like my selfquestion the validity of the Trust now, Those outside the CL universe will be confused by yet another group. I want the Trust to handle this because it is accountable, the breakaway will represent only their views and perceptions of what they believe is right for the club and the fan base.

PL54

Airman Brown said:

Thanks for the comments. To be clear, I am not a spokesman for the group, but in my view the distinction from the trust is that this is a task and finish group with no structure and no long-term ambition other than to respond to the current situation as we perceive it.

We have sought to bring together as many interested parties ex employees as possible rather than just leave it to the trust board, which is an accountable organisation and as such will need to represent various strands of opinion, as do posters on Charlton Life.

We're in amicable dialogue with the trust board, some of have signed the statement, and I believe they are clear this is not an attempt to usurp or challenge them or anyone else. Otherwise I don't really want to expand on the statement, other than to confirm that it has the explicit agreement of all the undersigned.

cabbles

cafcfan said:

So, let me see if I've got this straight:

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.

This is brilliant, it also summarises what's going on over there far better than numerous newspaper articles I have read.

Addickted

"United we stand, divided we ...errrrrr

kentaddick

PL54 said:

Airman Brown said:

Thanks for the comments. To be clear, I am not a spokesman for the group, but in my view the distinction from the trust is that this is a task and finish group with no structure and no long-term ambition other than to respond to the current situation as we perceive it.

We have sought to bring together as many interested parties ex employees as possible rather than just leave it to the trust board, which is an accountable organisation and as such will need to represent various strands of opinion, as do posters on Charlton Life.

We're in amicable dialogue with the trust board, some of have signed the statement, and I believe they are clear this is not an attempt to usurp or challenge them or anyone else. Otherwise I don't really want to expand on the statement, other than to confirm that it has the explicit agreement of all the undersigned.

seth plum

The supporters group is not a 'breakaway' group.

LargeAddick

Talking to RM? What good is that goung to do you? If Riga is RD's puppet then what is RD?

bobmunro

LargeAddick said:

Talking to RM? What good is that goung to do you? If Riga is RD's puppet then what is RD?

Keith Harris?

Solidgone

Is this the new Judean Popular Front that's supporting all mankind (and womankind)?

dickplumb

This group does not represent me. If I believe that the current owners are not good for Charlton I will vote in the way that best suits me, by not buying a Season ticket or some other way. Where are this groups mandate for representing the majority of Charlton fans?

Bill_Stumps

Addickted said:

Killarahales said:

RD can just say "My Club, my rules".

M. Duchatelet needs to understand that this is not his club, it is ours. We were here before he arrived and will be here long after he has gone. He is merely the temporary paymaster, his pay-off being the kudos of owning a major sporting club and, if he is extremely lucky, a return on his investment when we get to the Premier League. In the meantime he must remember that ownership extends beyond mere entitlements and involves responsibilities to other parties. As one of those parties, we fans deserve and are entitled to expect undivided loyalty and total support for the club from its owner. M. Duchatelet's multinational chain of clubs calls his loyalty to Charlton Athletic into question. His interests are not necessarily our club's interests, especially if his primary aim is to make money from his footballing empire. What we must do, and why this umbrella group is so important, embracing as it does the Trust and all other parties with an interest in the long-term welfare of CAFC, is to get the new owner to engage with us and explain exactly what his intentions are and where we fit into his plans.

Tutt-Tutt

Great initiative. RD needs to be aware that this is the spirit that defeated Greenwich Council. Charlton Athletic FC is not & should not be a feeder/nursery club for an outfit in a minor European League. The club is about the people, not a businessman who thinks he can implement a business plan without question. Get stuck in.

KHA

Airman Brown said:

Thanks for the comments. To be clear, I am not a spokesman for the group, but in my view the (A) distinction from the trust is that this is a task and finish group with no structure and no long-term ambition other than to respond to the current situation as we perceive it.

(B) We have sought to bring together as many interested parties as possible rather than just leave it to the trust board, which is an accountable organisation and as such will need to represent various strands of opinion, as do posters on Charlton Life.

We're in amicable dialogue with the trust board, some of have signed the statement, and I believe they are clear this is not an attempt to usurp or challenge them or anyone else. Otherwise I don't really want to expand on the statement, other than to confirm that it has the explicit agreement of all the undersigned.

A. Seems like a distinction without a difference.

B. Ditto. In other words you've tried to 'represent various strands of opinion', as does the Trust.

Not too late to join forces with the Trust - many here seem to be asking for it.

BigAndyCAFC

Isn't Richard Murray the link? Why would the owner bother? Didn't the fans of Man U form FC Utd when the Glazers took over? Why not form FC Charlton and run that your own way?