but in my view annie it drives a gap in the need for the trust , and their ability to ask or structure the questions in the correct way, as AB has just said the structure of the trust wouldn't allow it to work
so you could end up with this group
the trust and any other group that fancies coming together and talking on behalf of everyone
If jonnie jackson signs up to avengers assembled im in but he just signed up with roland for two years so I'm out - in jackson I trust 100% support - give us a goal tomorrow j8nnie boy.
I understand that fear NLA and there isn't a truly satisfactory answer. The Trust is almost crippled by the criticism it has received about acting without support from us. I feel enormous sympathy for the Trust guys. Dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. The current situation, IMO, requires urgent action and the Trust has supplied two board members to be in the new grouping. I am glad that they have been included. Any other group of people can set up their own group, there is nothing to stop them ( apart from inertia). The new group has tried to be inclusive, but, (and I almost can't believe I'm saying this,) sometimes the wheels of mechanism of representative democracy just grind too slowly. Action rather than discussion is required at the moment.
but in my view annie it drives a gap in the need for the trust , and their ability to ask or structure the questions in the correct way, as AB has just said the structure of the trust wouldn't allow it to work
so you could end up with this group
the trust and any other group that fancies coming together and talking on behalf of everyone
Nobody is making that claim on behalf of the group, any more than the Valley Party represented everyone's views in 1990. It's just not possible, as CL shows. Some people, including within CASC, thought the VP was a waste of time and would fail, legitimising the claim that there was limited support within Greenwich for Charlton coming back.
The group has concerns and is seeking to explore the issues. That's why the potential next step is a public meeting, where other views could be aired. If the concerns are not shared and the group has no legitimacy in the eyes of any other fans then presumably no one will come.
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.
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.
But you're not fighting a local election. CAFC is a closed shop, owned and financially supported by RD.
Such platitudes as "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." is straight out Yes Minister.
You can put forward any number of manifestos in a smoked filled back room (by invitation only), but it means sod all to our current owner. Leave these issues with the Trust.
If you really want to start something that RD will act and react to, then involve and encourage "the Yoof" - the statement talks about 'across the generations', but was there actually anyone at the meeting under 25?
Let the Trust do the talking and communicating and discussions on RD's 'exit strategy' as Henry calls it.
Direct action is what's really needed.
I can promise you that united direct action by Charlton fans will have more of an effect with RD, the Football League, the FA and the press than a few meetings to discuss how to 'improve the current situation'.
If jonnie jackson signs up to avengers assembled im in but he just signed up with roland for two years so I'm out - in jackson I trust 100% support - give us a goal tomorrow j8nnie boy.
Jackson has signed for 2 years wages. I doubt he will care where our club is after that.
but in my view annie it drives a gap in the need for the trust , and their ability to ask or structure the questions in the correct way, as AB has just said the structure of the trust wouldn't allow it to work
so you could end up with this group
the trust and any other group that fancies coming together and talking on behalf of everyone
Nobody is making that claim on behalf of the group, any more than the Valley Party represented everyone's views in 1990. It's just not possible, as CL shows. Some people, including within CASC, thought the VP was a waste of time and would fail, legitimising the claim that there was limited support within Greenwich for Charlton coming back.
The group has concerns and is seeking to explore the issues. That's why the potential next step is a public meeting, where other views could be aired. If the concerns are not shared and the group has no legitimacy in the eyes of any other fans then presumably no one will come.
then do this via the trust why are you getting another group together, if this body of highly knowledgeable people believe the trust need to act in a different way to get the answers you feel need to be answered then put it to them , the fact the trust are represented in this group gives the impression its fully supported and embraced by the trust
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.
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.
But you're not fighting a local election. CAFC is a closed shop, owned and financially supported by RD.
Such platitudes as "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." is straight out Yes Minister.
You can put forward any number of manifestos in a smoked filled back room (by invitation only), but it means sod all to our current owner. Leave these issues with the Trust.
If you really want to start something that RD will act and react to, then involve and encourage "the Yoof" - the statement talks about 'across the generations', but was there actually anyone at the meeting under 25?
Let the Trust do the talking and communicating and discussions on RD's 'exit strategy' as Henry calls it.
Direct action is what's really needed.
I can promise you that united direct action by Charlton fans will have more of an effect with RD, the Football League, the FA and the press than a few meetings to discuss how to 'improve the current situation'.
Except that I'm not at all sure that we yet understand what we would be taking action about. So far RD has not done very much wrong - excluding CPs dismissal which some would argue was justified anyway. All the talk about being a feeder club is contradicted/balanced by talk of his clubs being independent and for whom he has no favourites. From my perspective, we need clarity about his intentions - how the network will work together, what autonomy Charlton will have in terms of contract management, selection policy, transfer policy, loans between clubs and so on. Direct action without clarity of purpose can get very messy.
And sorry, but I still fail to see why the Trust isn't leading on this. Sticking something on the Trust website doesn't really mean much. No offence intended Raz and others, I truly respect your commitment and efforts, but this seems to me to be a heartland issue that is not being pursued directly enough.
but in my view annie it drives a gap in the need for the trust , and their ability to ask or structure the questions in the correct way, as AB has just said the structure of the trust wouldn't allow it to work
so you could end up with this group
the trust and any other group that fancies coming together and talking on behalf of everyone
Nobody is making that claim on behalf of the group, any more than the Valley Party represented everyone's views in 1990. It's just not possible, as CL shows. Some people, including within CASC, thought the VP was a waste of time and would fail, legitimising the claim that there was limited support within Greenwich for Charlton coming back.
The group has concerns and is seeking to explore the issues. That's why the potential next step is a public meeting, where other views could be aired. If the concerns are not shared and the group has no legitimacy in the eyes of any other fans then presumably no one will come.
then do this via the trust why are you getting another group together, if this body of highly knowledgeable people believe the trust need to act in a different way to get the answers you feel need to be answered then put it to them , the fact the trust are represented in this group gives the impression its fully supported and embraced by the trust
Couldn't agree more. Just how many Groups do we think Duchatelet will enter into a dialogue with?
CP leaves because he can't agree football matters with RD JR arrives and we suspect he is an RD stooge Articles in the press suggesting that CAFC is now a feeder club The team against Hudds only has two imports One of our oldest 1st teamers, JJ, gets a 2 year contract extension Neither RD nor his local rep KM clarify their plans for the club It is suggested that JR is working without a contract
We have the Trust who produce a worthwhile survey We have Fans Forum which hasn't met since the upheaval?? We have the VIP group which has met but is given a load of flannel by KM and RM Now we have AB telling us about "The Group of 21", which might grow
So where does that leave this very confused fan: I don't trust RD and KM, but they are trying to get Cat1 status for the academy, have committed to rebuild the pitch, given JJ a new contract, but they got rid of Yann and CP and own is it 5 other clubs.
I'm not sure what the Trust can do, but do understand that they have constitutional obligations. The FF and VIPs are an occasional conduit of communication but isn't that what this Group of 21 want
Having meandered on somewhat I have reached a conclusion which is that Group 21 have an implied threat as a number of them either were involved in the campaign to return us home and/or have held staff positions at cafc and therefore know what they. are talking about. I'm glad the group has formed and I support them, but I'm still confused.
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.
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.
But you're not fighting a local election. CAFC is a closed shop, owned and financially supported by RD.
Such platitudes as "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." is straight out Yes Minister.
You can put forward any number of manifestos in a smoked filled back room (by invitation only), but it means sod all to our current owner. Leave these issues with the Trust.
If you really want to start something that RD will act and react to, then involve and encourage "the Yoof" - the statement talks about 'across the generations', but was there actually anyone at the meeting under 25?
Let the Trust do the talking and communicating and discussions on RD's 'exit strategy' as Henry calls it.
Direct action is what's really needed.
I can promise you that united direct action by Charlton fans will have more of an effect with RD, the Football League, the FA and the press than a few meetings to discuss how to 'improve the current situation'.
Except that I'm not at all sure that we yet understand what we would be taking action about. So far RD has not done very much wrong - excluding CPs dismissal which some would argue was justified anyway. All the talk about being a feeder club is contradicted/balanced by talk of his clubs being independent and for whom he has no favourites. From my perspective, we need clarity about his intentions - how the network will work together, what autonomy Charlton will have in terms of contract management, selection policy, transfer policy, loans between clubs and so on. Direct action without clarity of purpose can get very messy.
And sorry, but I still fail to see why the Trust isn't leading on this. Sticking something on the Trust website doesn't really mean much. No offence intended Raz and others, I truly respect your commitment and efforts, but this seems to me to be a heartland issue that is not being pursued directly enough.
Sorry - didn't make myself clear.
I do not suggest direct action now - it's pointless as I really struggle to find significant fault with any of RDs decisions at the moment, (though I don't agree with them all). Indeed I believe his new ST policy shows thought, initiative and reward for committed fans.
The Trust is there to question autonomy, contract management, academy, selection policy, transfer policy, loans between clubs and ground/club development.
I'm just not sure what this other 'supporters group' is there to do. Surely they can work from within the trust to develop ideas along these lines?
They aren't the same thrusting, dynamic, committed and energetic fans they were 25 years ago.
The trust is obliged to abide by protocol, and it takes a lot of trouble to get fellow Charlton fans involved, by surveys, matchday presence, the website, and a magazine principally. That means a lot of people are at the very least interested in the trust. However the trust has always taken great pains to not look as if it is leading the members by the nose. It has to tread more carefully. The Trust is criticised if it seems slow to react because it wants to feel confident it speaks for the majority as best as it can tell.
Going for the ACV was not decided by referendum, but it was pursued after a period of communication, in many ways organic, but it was after an honest effort to discover what fans may want, and then to guide action.
There was no vote as such about ACV, but it was informed action. There are few supporters who don't think sorting the ACV (however many holes there are in the legislation about them) was a good thing, a decent effort.
The Trust, mainly in the form of the Trust board, after similarly attempting to gauge opinion, may well want to fully associate the Trust with the supporters group and it's simple attempt to meet and raise a few concerns. It may become a joint enterprise, it may want to partially associate, it may want to pursue a different path.
It is a period of change, everybody across the spectrum can see that. Leadership has changed, we continue to fight a relegation battle, the support want to make decisions about season tickets, there is still a lack of assurance about the future standing of the club due to mixed messages and actions.
However flimsy those issues may seem for some, for supporters to want to get a better understanding about things, and to ask for a meeting, is not the most surprising thing to happen at this moment in our season, and in our History.
I don't see things as factions, or rifts, or breakaways, or rivalries, but rather in the spirit of our community club where caring supporters don't want to feel disassociated.
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.
And no disrespect to the 20 great and good but how many current supporters do they actually really represent? I don't mean that in any way that is disrespectful for their past work for the club but 20 out of however many fans is insignificant. It's been said on another thread but most fans aren't interested in the politics/strategy of the club most will turn up regardless.
but in my view annie it drives a gap in the need for the trust , and their ability to ask or structure the questions in the correct way, as AB has just said the structure of the trust wouldn't allow it to work
so you could end up with this group
the trust and any other group that fancies coming together and talking on behalf of everyone
Nobody is making that claim on behalf of the group, any more than the Valley Party represented everyone's views in 1990. It's just not possible, as CL shows. Some people, including within CASC, thought the VP was a waste of time and would fail, legitimising the claim that there was limited support within Greenwich for Charlton coming back.
The group has concerns and is seeking to explore the issues. That's why the potential next step is a public meeting, where other views could be aired. If the concerns are not shared and the group has no legitimacy in the eyes of any other fans then presumably no one will come.
This is exactly right. I fully supported the VP but recall plenty of people denigrating the campaign as pointless even though they wanted what the VP was campaigning for. It was very frustrating at the time and this point of view is rarely mentioned these days because it was deemed a great achievement.
The trust is obliged to abide by protocol, and it takes a lot of trouble to get fellow Charlton fans involved, by surveys, matchday presence, the website, and a magazine principally. That means a lot of people are at the very least interested in the trust. However the trust has always taken great pains to not look as if it is leading the members by the nose. It has to tread more carefully. The Trust is criticised if it seems slow to react because it wants to feel confident it speaks for the majority as best as it can tell.
Going for the ACV was not decided by referendum, but it was pursued after a period of communication, in many ways organic, but it was after an honest effort to discover what fans may want, and then to guide action.
There was no vote as such about ACV, but it was informed action. There are few supporters who don't think sorting the ACV (however many holes there are in the legislation about them) was a good thing, a decent effort.
The Trust, mainly in the form of the Trust board, after similarly attempting to gauge opinion, may well want to fully associate the Trust with the supporters group and it's simple attempt to meet and raise a few concerns. It may become a joint enterprise, it may want to partially associate, it may want to pursue a different path.
It is a period of change, everybody across the spectrum can see that. Leadership has changed, we continue to fight a relegation battle, the support want to make decisions about season tickets, there is still a lack of assurance about the future standing of the club due to mixed messages and actions.
However flimsy those issues may seem for some, for supporters to want to get a better understanding about things, and to ask for a meeting, is not the most surprising thing to happen at this moment in our season, and in our History.
I don't see things as factions, or rifts, or breakaways, or rivalries, but rather in the spirit of our community club where caring supporters don't want to feel disassociated.
So whilst the Trust, with it's legitimacy based on its significant membership, "abides by protocol" and works diplomatically through "official channels" this more radical splinter group takes more aggressive action, perhaps launching an attack on the Club Shop, just to demonstrate the Fans have real teeth. But who does the UN recognise and, critically, who does Duchatelet parlez with?
I apologise for not reading all the comments but there is a problem with the site being unresponsive. So, if someone else has said this that's the reason.
My initial reaction was: why don't the people Airman listed just join the Trust? Why do we need ANOTHER body supposedly representing the fans. But then I thought a bit more and realised that the Trust was formed by a different generation of fans, so maybe the "old guard" should remain separate from the "new guard"? I wonder what our owner thinks? Maybe he's thinking "Oh FFS another load of Charlton people who expect me to interact with then! Don't they know how many other clubs I'm trying to control?".
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.
I agree entirely. I find it rather bizarre that last week Mick tried to close down the debate & this week he is demanding one.
Anyway, Mick is a good bloke & we shouldn't get side tracked & I put it down to "just one of those things".
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.
And no disrespect to the 20 great and good but how many current supporters do they actually really represent? I don't mean that in any way that is disrespectful for their past work for the club but 20 out of however many fans is insignificant. It's been said on another thread but most fans aren't interested in the politics/strategy of the club most will turn up regardless.
The difficulty IMO is precisely that, most fans just want to turn up, have a few beers, chat and hopefully see the team win, or at least put in a decent shift. They are the lifeblood of any football club, and they are invaluable. But, and it is a significant but, they may not notice the removal of the cornerstones, the steady erosion of the club values until one day they wake up and, pfooofff, it's all just mysteriously gone. I welcome the efforts of anyone who is trying to stop that happening. And now to the important stuff, who's getting the next round in? :-)
so seth this group could fall under the trust umbrella in the future
I think it could, I prefer the word 'embrace' rather than 'under' if you get my drift, but why not? A unified supporter base is more likely to be good than bad. The supporters group are an initiative that has happened because communication with the club, particularly at this moment in time, would be a way of informing the fan base even more and strengthening unity all round.
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.
And no disrespect to the 20 great and good but how many current supporters do they actually really represent? I don't mean that in any way that is disrespectful for their past work for the club but 20 out of however many fans is insignificant. It's been said on another thread but most fans aren't interested in the politics/strategy of the club most will turn up regardless.
The difficulty IMO is precisely that, most fans just want to turn up, have a few beers, chat and hopefully see the team win, or at least put in a decent shift. They are the lifeblood of any football club, and they are invaluable. But, and it is a significant but, they may not notice the removal of the cornerstones, the steady erosion of the club values until one day they wake up and, pfooofff, it's all just mysteriously gone. I welcome the efforts of anyone who is trying to stop that happening. And now to the important stuff, who's getting the next round in? :-)
I totally agree. Unless a majority of people see some clear and present danger to their club, they won't get involved. And people in authority always know this. Your shout Stilladdicted - can I have a Kronie please?
*Statement calling for comms on direction of cafc *Email to cafc board members requesting that too *Radio interview also doing that
The first two were before the fan meeting
We didnt call a broader meeting but responded to a call for one to hear concerns.
I think maybe we are too concerned with formality or who does what, we are all Charlton fans but we are divided, if this is a way we can be closer isn't that a good thing
*Statement calling for comms on direction of cafc *Email to cafc board members requesting that too *Radio interview also doing that
The first two were before the fan meeting
We didnt call a broader meeting but responded to a call for one to hear concerns.
I think maybe we are too concerned with formality or who does what, we are all Charlton fans but we are divided, if this is a way we can be closer isn't that a good thing
Comments
so you could end up with this group
the trust and any other group that fancies coming together and talking on behalf of everyone
The group has concerns and is seeking to explore the issues. That's why the potential next step is a public meeting, where other views could be aired. If the concerns are not shared and the group has no legitimacy in the eyes of any other fans then presumably no one will come.
Such platitudes as "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." is straight out Yes Minister.
You can put forward any number of manifestos in a smoked filled back room (by invitation only), but it means sod all to our current owner. Leave these issues with the Trust.
If you really want to start something that RD will act and react to, then involve and encourage "the Yoof" - the statement talks about 'across the generations', but was there actually anyone at the meeting under 25?
Let the Trust do the talking and communicating and discussions on RD's 'exit strategy' as Henry calls it.
Direct action is what's really needed.
I can promise you that united direct action by Charlton fans will have more of an effect with RD, the Football League, the FA and the press than a few meetings to discuss how to 'improve the current situation'.
then do this via the trust why are you getting another group together, if this body of highly knowledgeable people believe the trust need to act in a different way to get the answers you feel need to be answered then put it to them , the fact the trust are represented in this group gives the impression its fully supported and embraced by the trust
And sorry, but I still fail to see why the Trust isn't leading on this. Sticking something on the Trust website doesn't really mean much. No offence intended Raz and others, I truly respect your commitment and efforts, but this seems to me to be a heartland issue that is not being pursued directly enough.
CP leaves because he can't agree football matters with RD
JR arrives and we suspect he is an RD stooge
Articles in the press suggesting that CAFC is now a feeder club
The team against Hudds only has two imports
One of our oldest 1st teamers, JJ, gets a 2 year contract extension
Neither RD nor his local rep KM clarify their plans for the club
It is suggested that JR is working without a contract
We have the Trust who produce a worthwhile survey
We have Fans Forum which hasn't met since the upheaval??
We have the VIP group which has met but is given a load of flannel by KM and RM
Now we have AB telling us about "The Group of 21", which might grow
So where does that leave this very confused fan:
I don't trust RD and KM, but they are trying to get Cat1 status for the academy, have committed to rebuild the pitch, given JJ a new contract, but they got rid of Yann and CP and own is it 5 other clubs.
I'm not sure what the Trust can do, but do understand that they have constitutional obligations. The FF and VIPs are an occasional conduit of communication but isn't that what this Group of 21 want
Having meandered on somewhat I have reached a conclusion which is that Group 21 have an implied threat as a number of them either were involved in the campaign to return us home and/or have held staff positions at cafc and therefore know what they. are talking about. I'm glad the group has formed and I support them, but I'm still confused.
I do not suggest direct action now - it's pointless as I really struggle to find significant fault with any of RDs decisions at the moment, (though I don't agree with them all). Indeed I believe his new ST policy shows thought, initiative and reward for committed fans.
The Trust is there to question autonomy, contract management, academy, selection policy, transfer policy, loans between clubs and ground/club development.
I'm just not sure what this other 'supporters group' is there to do. Surely they can work from within the trust to develop ideas along these lines?
They aren't the same thrusting, dynamic, committed and energetic fans they were 25 years ago.
Indeed, some of them even had hair then.
Going for the ACV was not decided by referendum, but it was pursued after a period of communication, in many ways organic, but it was after an honest effort to discover what fans may want, and then to guide action.
There was no vote as such about ACV, but it was informed action. There are few supporters who don't think sorting the ACV (however many holes there are in the legislation about them) was a good thing, a decent effort.
The Trust, mainly in the form of the Trust board, after similarly attempting to gauge opinion, may well want to fully associate the Trust with the supporters group and it's simple attempt to meet and raise a few concerns. It may become a joint enterprise, it may want to partially associate, it may want to pursue a different path.
It is a period of change, everybody across the spectrum can see that. Leadership has changed, we continue to fight a relegation battle, the support want to make decisions about season tickets, there is still a lack of assurance about the future standing of the club due to mixed messages and actions.
However flimsy those issues may seem for some, for supporters to want to get a better understanding about things, and to ask for a meeting, is not the most surprising thing to happen at this moment in our season, and in our History.
I don't see things as factions, or rifts, or breakaways, or rivalries, but rather in the spirit of our community club where caring supporters don't want to feel disassociated.
:-)
My initial reaction was: why don't the people Airman listed just join the Trust? Why do we need ANOTHER body supposedly representing the fans. But then I thought a bit more and realised that the Trust was formed by a different generation of fans, so maybe the "old guard" should remain separate from the "new guard"? I wonder what our owner thinks? Maybe he's thinking "Oh FFS another load of Charlton people who expect me to interact with then! Don't they know how many other clubs I'm trying to control?".
Anyway, Mick is a good bloke & we shouldn't get side tracked & I put it down to "just one of those things".
A unified supporter base is more likely to be good than bad.
The supporters group are an initiative that has happened because communication with the club, particularly at this moment in time, would be a way of informing the fan base even more and strengthening unity all round.
*Statement calling for comms on direction of cafc
*Email to cafc board members requesting that too
*Radio interview also doing that
The first two were before the fan meeting
We didnt call a broader meeting but responded to a call for one to hear concerns.
I think maybe we are too concerned with formality or who does what, we are all Charlton fans but we are divided, if this is a way we can be closer isn't that a good thing
Strikes me that we have more direction and greater stability now.
Call me cynical but you can't help but think this is underpinned by the Powell sacking.
I simply cannot find anything that RD has done that warrants a Trust Military Arm forming.