Great initiative. RD needs to be aware that this is the spirit that defeated Greenwich Council.
There's a great deal of difference between a Local Authority, whose control is based on a mandate by the people and whose members can be de-selected by the same electorate and the sole owner of a business.
Well done Airman and all those other signatories. I would like to know if we going to try to sign any worthwhile goalscorers, or players to strengthen the team before the deadline or just carry on with what we've got. Perhaps we can learn from what Swansea did years ago!
I don't understand why this group aren't channeling things via the Trust. Which probably means I don't quite get the point of the Trust - I considered it to be the one stop shop for supporter issues and campaigning when it's needed.
Great initiative. RD needs to be aware that this is the spirit that defeated Greenwich Council.
There's a great deal of difference between a Local Authority, whose control is based on a mandate by the people and whose members can be de-selected by the same electorate and the sole owner of a business.
Quite right.
He didn't care when the Liege fans rioted. I can't seem him be overly concerned by 20 blokes in a room penning a statement.
why was this done, I don't understand it, for ages its been said on here the fans voice is the trust, now there's this other group , some with deep personal resentment to the club and its officials , trying to gain answers on behalf of all
whats the trust for ???
has this just sounded the death bell ?
why should people bother to join or contribute in financial capacity or time if this free other group exists
The trust has over 1000 paid members and is recognised by a national body and governed by strict rules.
We do surveys so we can get an idea of what the people we represent actually think rather than presuming that our view is theres. I think its a great idea if done scientifically, and thats what we try to do its hard work and a great credit to our team. And no Clem if done right you don't have to survey the whole fan base for it to be representative much like polls - Weegie can confirm that perhaps.
To me this group is huge show of unity in support of what the trust has been trying to do (as someone pointed out) - get an open meaningful dialogue going, I said this on Wednesday evening on BBC London after attending the meeting in question.
I didn't put my name to the doc as I felt the proper thing as Chairman/spokesperson was to refer back to our group, which will meet on Monday - hate that its called a board sounds pompous but its in the adopted standard rules we have.
I don't think the Trust should or has claimed exclusivity in representing the fans, and as I have said it belongs to all fans to an extent and is what we make of it. I do think we should listen when a group of fans get together and expresses these concerns and that is what we are doing, we after all are just fans too.
I believe there may be some form of response to our statement coming shortly after speaking to the Chairman this Morning
why was this done, I don't understand it, for ages its been said on here the fans voice is the trust, now there's this other group , some with deep personal resentment to the club and its officials , trying to gain answers on behalf of all
whats the trust for ???
has this just sounded the death bell ?
why should people bother to join or contribute in financial capacity or time if this free other group exists
all a bit odd and all a bit self indulgent
I couldn't have put it better myself. Where were this group when the chuckle brothers were in power?
why was this done, I don't understand it, for ages its been said on here the fans voice is the trust, now there's this other group , some with deep personal resentment to the club and its officials , trying to gain answers on behalf of all
whats the trust for ???
has this just sounded the death bell ?
why should people bother to join or contribute in financial capacity or time if this free other group exists
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.
I agree, one of the best posts I've ever seen on here.
We had a statement on our site earlier this week is that not leading? We also contacted the club asking for a meeting. We will discuss the response and a public response from the club expected today or tomorrow on Monday and comment further, but if anything this group adds more weight to our call, and as stated we were invited to attend and participate which we did.
I would be interested to know how many of the signatories are members of the Trust and if not, why they are not? It would give a clearer view of how these "high profile supporters" view the Trust.
Is this a thread for the judea peoples front or the peoples front of judea ?... and whats that roland ever done for us apart from bring in some players we couldnt afford before, sold a striker that didnt actually get that many goals and replaced a manager whose team is bottom of the league and seems to pass back a lot, not score many goals and lose more games than they win
We had a statement on our site earlier this week is that not leading? We also contacted the club asking for a meeting. We will discuss the response and a public response from the club expected today or tomorrow on Monday and comment further, but if anything this group adds more weight to our call, and as stated we were invited to attend and participate which we did.
so we have 2 different groups asking the same questions
I would be interested to know how many of the signatories are members of the Trust and if not, why they are not? It would give a clearer view of how these "high profile supporters" view the Trust.
Perhaps they have a variety of views? I support the trust. At the same time I don't endorse everything it says and does.
The point is that trust policy is set by its board, but the trust board cannot dictate the views of this group. If the group acted through the trust then it would have to follow the policy of the trust, in which case it would be unlikely to hold together.
This is the same model used for the Valley Party, the core of which came from the then Charlton Athletic Supporters' Club. But CASC did not fight the local elections, it sat at the heart of a wider group of fans - and incidentally emerged much stronger when the VP disbanded.
Anything that has Steve Dixon and Peter Cordwell involved with has to be a good thing in my opinion.
Only issue I have with this is the demanding of a meeting. Numerous of us had a meeting with RM and the Sporting Director last Thursday, we had a few great questions asked particularly from a poster on here which caused a stir but was bang on the money. This was the responded to by Mick Gebbett who thought some of the people in the room had been harsh on the new owners (or words to that effect) and we had to see what their future plans were. The moment was lost when we could have kept them on the spot with more pertinent questions. and now we have him signing this demanding action! So if we get another meeting will be interesting to see if the same line of questions will be allowed.
The point is that trust policy is set by its board, but the trust board cannot dictate the views of this group. If the group acted through the trust then it would have to follow the policy of the trust, in which case it would be unlikely to hold together.
What a mucking fuddle. An apparent splinter group with a couple of trust members, backed by the trusts chairman, asking the questions that the trust should be asking.
This is the first positive step as far as I'm concerned, we need to know if the new owner is aspiring to the same ambition that supporters hold. Frankly his actions and words from SL associates don't appear to hold with the best interest of our club.
I support Charlton Athletic Football Club not the name Charlton Athletic stripped of its ambition and identity.
What a mucking fuddle. An apparent splinter group with a couple of trust members, backed by the trusts chairman, asking the questions that the trust should be asking.
I think that the new grouping is more politically astute, and in the current circumstances, that is a much needed asset. I don't mean that to be derogatory in any sense, it is more a recognition of current realities. I support the trust wholeheartedly, they are of us and for us. But politics ( note the small 'p') isn't something people just absorb through their skins, it requires knowledge and a grounding in the mechanisms of political action. It is my belief that the new grouping has that level of experience and understanding. It is not a splinter group at all, it is an informed unidirectional group and I will support it in which ever way that I am able.
Comments
I would like to know if we going to try to sign any worthwhile goalscorers,
or players to strengthen the team before the deadline
or just carry on with what we've got.
Perhaps we can learn from what Swansea did years ago!
Good luck to everyone putting effort in.
He didn't care when the Liege fans rioted. I can't seem him be overly concerned by 20 blokes in a room penning a statement.
whats the trust for ???
has this just sounded the death bell ?
why should people bother to join or contribute in financial capacity or time if this free other group exists
all a bit odd and all a bit self indulgent
We do surveys so we can get an idea of what the people we represent actually think rather than presuming that our view is theres. I think its a great idea if done scientifically, and thats what we try to do its hard work and a great credit to our team. And no Clem if done right you don't have to survey the whole fan base for it to be representative much like polls - Weegie can confirm that perhaps.
To me this group is huge show of unity in support of what the trust has been trying to do (as someone pointed out) - get an open meaningful dialogue going,
I said this on Wednesday evening on BBC London after attending the meeting in question.
I didn't put my name to the doc as I felt the proper thing as Chairman/spokesperson was to refer back to our group, which will meet on Monday - hate that its called a board sounds pompous but its in the adopted standard rules we have.
I don't think the Trust should or has claimed exclusivity in representing the fans, and as I have said it belongs to all fans to an extent and is what we make of it. I do think we should listen when a group of fans get together and expresses these concerns and that is what we are doing, we after all are just fans too.
I believe there may be some form of response to our statement coming shortly after speaking to the Chairman this Morning
I'll only be concerned if they start producing their own badges
but if the new group wanted the meeting why not ask the trust to do it as 1 voice surely 2 voices or more is just diluting the strength of the trust
The point is that trust policy is set by its board, but the trust board cannot dictate the views of this group. If the group acted through the trust then it would have to follow the policy of the trust, in which case it would be unlikely to hold together.
This is the same model used for the Valley Party, the core of which came from the then Charlton Athletic Supporters' Club. But CASC did not fight the local elections, it sat at the heart of a wider group of fans - and incidentally emerged much stronger when the VP disbanded.
Only issue I have with this is the demanding of a meeting. Numerous of us had a meeting with RM and the Sporting Director last Thursday, we had a few great questions asked particularly from a poster on here which caused a stir but was bang on the money. This was the responded to by Mick Gebbett who thought some of the people in the room had been harsh on the new owners (or words to that effect) and we had to see what their future plans were. The moment was lost when we could have kept them on the spot with more pertinent questions. and now we have him signing this demanding action! So if we get another meeting will be interesting to see if the same line of questions will be allowed.
The point is that trust policy is set by its board, but the trust board cannot dictate the views of this group. If the group acted through the trust then it would have to follow the policy of the trust, in which case it would be unlikely to hold together.
is the way to get answers
I support Charlton Athletic Football Club not the name Charlton Athletic stripped of its ambition and identity.
I am now well confused