This was why I posed the original question. If most of the people at the meeting were Trust members, then surely any communication to the "hierachy" would be made through the Trust. This is not intended, in any way, to diminish the great work done by the many at the time of the VP, but the trust, I thought, was there to do this now.
I think a lot of people fail to see how or why it was needed and why it was not the trust chair and board with these guys, taking advice and points of view and then putting it all together
and instead its like the valley party are re forming
Others have said it better than I ever could - but for me there is no similarity between the VP and this supporters group. Greenwich Council were standing in the way of the club and as an elected body could be challenged at the ballot box - they did not own the club but had to listen to protect their own backsides. CAFC is not a public body, rather a privately owned company that, staying within the law, can do what the bloody hell it likes. The more that autonomy is challenged the more likely the owners are to say bugger off. What would this supporters group do if that was the response from RD? Hollow threats? RD doesn't strike me as the sort of man who would respond positively if threatened. As someone said on another thread, the real estate that RD has purchased is worth pretty much what he paid for the whole shooting match.
The only effective way to challenge a privately owned company operating within the law is to stop buying their products or services - and we are hopefully, quite rightly, not going to do that because it would damage the very thing we are trying to protect. Dialogue is good so that we understand the plans and from where I'm sitting the dialogue and general communication coming out of the boardroom is better now that it has been for years. But whatever RD is planning to do will, with almost certainty, be done. To continue that dialogue there needs to be one united voice - there is no room in my opinion for this group and the Trust.
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.......
Clem, the Trust are supposed to represent the supporter base. Surveying is a perfectly valid and sensible way to avoid the accusation that they're representing their own interests. Of course it will be a sample, and there are statistical disciplines to be applied, but the survey seems objective to me and will - at least - give an indication of the current heatmap on the issue.
I will say this - the Trust would be stronger if those supporters meeting before the Huddersfield game had done so as part of a Trust working party. It might have helped realign the perception many of us have that they're prioritising protecting the relationship over addressing the issues. Certainly there's a need for more proactivity, and I suspect this is why the meeting happened as it did; I think we're weaker divided, sadly.
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.......
Clem, the Trust are supposed to represent the supporter base. Surveying is a perfectly valid and sensible way to avoid the accusation that they're representing their own interests. Of course it will be a sample, and there are statistical disciplines to be applied, but the survey seems objective to me and will - at least - give an indication of the current heatmap on the issue.
I will say this - the Trust would be stronger if those supporters meeting before the Huddersfield game had done so as part of a Trust working party. It might have helped realign the perception many of us have that they're prioritising protecting the relationship over addressing the issues. Certainly there's a need for more proactivity, and I suspect this is why the meeting happened as it did; I think we're weaker divided, sadly.
Of course surveys will never be 100% representative and yes they can be valid. It was the way the comment was worded that narked me.
Add the fact that I actually believe it is a pointless exercise. What exactly is it going to achieve? powell has gone and no amount of hits on Survey Monkey are going to bring him back.
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.
It would have been better had it been a temporary organisation established as a working party within the Trust. I hope Airman isn't really saying that it was established this way because the group wants to serve their own interests rather than the wider supporter base the Trust seeks to represent.
I feel the priority is to establish a public airing of the football strategy that led to such a sharp difference between Powell and the board. Just because Powell couldn't work within it doesn't necessarily mean it won't work to our benefit, and despite my own misgivings over RD he deserves the chance to articulate his direction for the club. Then, if necessary, we can get antagonistic - but we really will need a wider group to make that effective.
I think a lot of people fail to see how or why it was needed and why it was not the trust chair and board with these guys, taking advice and points of view and then putting it all together
and instead its like the valley party are re forming
I have contributed my view above as to why I think the phenomena is happening the way it is at this point in time.
Some people will fail to see things, sometimes because they won't engage, and sometimes because things are difficult to understand, and sometimes because their questions aren't answered, and sometimes because things are really actually unclear.
Indeed the confusion about the supporters initiative mirrors the confusion about the changes at Charlton.
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.......
Clem, the Trust are supposed to represent the supporter base. Surveying is a perfectly valid and sensible way to avoid the accusation that they're representing their own interests. Of course it will be a sample, and there are statistical disciplines to be applied, but the survey seems objective to me and will - at least - give an indication of the current heatmap on the issue.
I will say this - the Trust would be stronger if those supporters meeting before the Huddersfield game had done so as part of a Trust working party. It might have helped realign the perception many of us have that they're prioritising protecting the relationship over addressing the issues. Certainly there's a need for more proactivity, and I suspect this is why the meeting happened as it did; I think we're weaker divided, sadly.
Of course surveys will never be 100% representative and yes they can be valid. It was the way the comment was worded that narked me.
Add the fact that I actually believe it is a pointless exercise. What exactly is it going to achieve? powell has gone and no amount of hits on Survey Monkey are going to bring him back.
Where has it been said that the initiative is about bringing Powell back?
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.......
Clem, the Trust are supposed to represent the supporter base. Surveying is a perfectly valid and sensible way to avoid the accusation that they're representing their own interests. Of course it will be a sample, and there are statistical disciplines to be applied, but the survey seems objective to me and will - at least - give an indication of the current heatmap on the issue.
I will say this - the Trust would be stronger if those supporters meeting before the Huddersfield game had done so as part of a Trust working party. It might have helped realign the perception many of us have that they're prioritising protecting the relationship over addressing the issues. Certainly there's a need for more proactivity, and I suspect this is why the meeting happened as it did; I think we're weaker divided, sadly.
Of course surveys will never be 100% representative and yes they can be valid. It was the way the comment was worded that narked me.
Add the fact that I actually believe it is a pointless exercise. What exactly is it going to achieve? powell has gone and no amount of hits on Survey Monkey are going to bring him back.
Where has it been said that the initiative is about bringing Powell back?
Nowhere. But if you had read my earlier comment you would have noted that in my opinion the whole thing is underpinned/motivated by the Powell sacking.
Was the meeting already planned or convened after he was dismissed?
I would prefer that all things like this come from the trust via the trust and shown as from the trust seth
I want the trust to be the voice and leading every communication there is to RD and his people
I don't see anything wrong with that.
The risk will always be the accusation that the Trust either does not represent the real view of the fans, or that it is not telepathic and able to have an instant response to the obvious concerns of the fans. It is to the credit to the Trust board that they are sensitive to those constraints, and don't want to decide everything on the hoof. I think the present context of where Charlton Athletic are at right now as a club has created the present phenomena of the initiative. It is out in the open, not sinister.
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.
Because thats what it sounds like although maybe without the Trust side of it.
The Trust becomes undermined by the gang of 20.As I said before if this is a battle then I expect the Trust to lead it not abrogate responsibility to a new group.
The Trust is a fans pressure group stop worrying about prosesses and procedures bring dissaffected into the the Trust and make them work with you instead of beside you.
Self elected on the quiet.....self indulgent. Considering one of the names was advocating a season ticket boycott to bring the owner to the table says it all to me. May as well disband the Trust now as you're basically being undermined....same with the Fans Forum, as this new faction obviously feel they are superior.
Self elected on the quiet.....self indulgent. Considering one of the names was advocating a season ticket boycott to bring the owner to the table says it all to me. May as well disband the Trust now as you're basically being undermined....same with the Fans Forum, as this new faction obviously feel they are superior.
Nothing that has been said has suggested the supporters initiative 'feels they are superior'. You are perfectly at liberty to interpret it that way of course, but I can't find the evidence myself.
I hope that this other group doesn't make others feel the trust aint needed though mate after all the efforts to get it up and running
But I think that's exactly how some Trust members will feel. Why bother with the Trust if when the first potentially serious issues emerge, it is an alternative group that takes the initiative to address them. Nothing Airman or Raz have said on this thread adequately addresses the question of why this initiative could not have been taken or at least steered through/by the Trust in order to indicate to the Board a united group of concerned fans. To me the Trust is different from a supporters group in that it exists "to Preserve Charlton Athletic for This and Future Generations". If the worst fears about RDs intentions and business/operating model are well founded, to oppose them must surely be the raison d'être of the Trust.
Self elected on the quiet.....self indulgent. Considering one of the names was advocating a season ticket boycott to bring the owner to the table says it all to me. May as well disband the Trust now as you're basically being undermined....same with the Fans Forum, as this new faction obviously feel they are superior.
Nothing that has been said has suggested the supporters initiative 'feels they are superior'. You are perfectly at liberty to interpret it that way of course, but I can't find the evidence myself.
So tell me.....did this new group exhaust every avenue to have whatever questions they may have answered via the two recognized organizations i.e. The Fans Forum and The Trust?
Self elected on the quiet.....self indulgent. Considering one of the names was advocating a season ticket boycott to bring the owner to the table says it all to me. May as well disband the Trust now as you're basically being undermined....same with the Fans Forum, as this new faction obviously feel they are superior.
Nothing that has been said has suggested the supporters initiative 'feels they are superior'. You are perfectly at liberty to interpret it that way of course, but I can't find the evidence myself.
So tell me.....did this new group exhaust every avenue to have whatever questions they may have answered via the two recognized organizations i.e. The Fans Forum and The Trust?
I am pretty sure that the group contains Trust officers and (at least one) VIP Member, and (at least one) Fans Forum member. I don't know if that is what is meant by exhaust every avenue. The group first came together two days ago.
What I don't get is that there is greater communication now than there was under TJ et al. I still don't see what RD has done wrong yet. Sold Yann and Stephens? We have always been a selling Club. RD got offers he thought were too good to refuse for players left on short contracts likely to leave for nothing in the summer. Yann was offered a new deal but turned it down. He is committed to spending 600k plus on the pitch, something even RM says should have been done sooner under his watch. Talk of our players heading for Leige is pie in the sky for me cause I can't see any players agreeing. He has hardly been here five minutes and deserves more time in my opinion. Jacko had now signed a new deal, who knows more may follow. He had a plan, it may work, it may not, but at least he has one. Did TJ et al? Did they ever communicate it with us?
Oh, nearly forgot, he sacked Chris Powell. Some support that some don't. He won't be the first manager we sack, won't be the last. We are bottom of the table, six wins all season, lowest scorers out of 92. New owner comes in, sacks underperforming Manager. Surprised?
I am not surprised some fans are concerned with some of these events but it's too early for me to start going all Wolfie Smith.
I hope that this other group doesn't make others feel the trust aint needed though mate after all the efforts to get it up and running
But I think that's exactly how some Trust members will feel. Why bother with the Trust if when the first potentially serious issues emerge, it is an alternative group that takes the initiative to address them. Nothing Airman or Raz have said on this thread adequately addresses the question of why this initiative could not have been taken or at least steered through/by the Trust in order to indicate to the Board a united group of concerned fans. To me the Trust is different from a supporters group in that it exists "to Preserve Charlton Athletic for This and Future Generations". If the worst fears about RDs intentions and business/operating model are well founded, to oppose them must surely be the raison d'être of the Trust.
Davo - Have you read Raz's post of 8.55pm explaining the initiatives the Trust had already taken before the meeting on Wednesday that Airman set up ?
I'm with the sceptics on this one, I'm afraid. I see a case for trying to get clarification from RD on exactly what his plans are from the club, but this self appointed 'Supporters Group' seems unnecessary. It's undermining the Trust's credibility IMO. It's as if you are saying to the trust, "okay kids that's enough messing around - move over and let the grown ups have a go".
I don't really understand why, if all you are asking for at this stage is a meeting with RD to clarify his plans, that would be unlikely to fail if it came from the trust? As much as it's good for your kudos on Charlton Life, I doubt RD gives two hoots that some of you used to work for the club or were involved in a local election campaign getting on for thirty years ago. Surely if the approach comes through the official supporters trust, it adds legitimacy to the approach and is more likely to be taken seriously?
This gives me the impression that you are already gearing up for the things to turn ugly. That's conjecture on my part, I admit, but if I'm correct then minds are being made up too soon. IMO, the correct steps here are official approaches from the Trust to the Club requesting dialogue with the Owner specifically regarding his plans for Charlton in terms of performance targets and how we will fit into the network and what effect that will have signing and selling players and what are JR and KM's roles, responsibilities and powers.
IF we get answers we don't like or IF there is a flat out refusal to enter dialogue, THEN it may be time to get a bit more militant about it and, without knowing the ins and outs of their charter, I appreciate that might be tricky to be done under the banner of the Trust.
It seems to me we may have skipped a few steps in the diplomatic process here and are already readying troops for mobilisation.
*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
Exactly. The Trust did take the lead on this. From the outside it seems as though the new group has just barged you to one side and said "leave this to the men", when it could have said "We have some ideas and experience that could be useful here. Can we come on board?" Which approach will carry more weight with RD? Which approach minimises division? The answer to the second of these questions is, I think, evident from reading this thread.
This is a tricky one to me & with the greatest respect to all, it is hard to comment on, without risking offence.
However, I would say for me, one of the weaknesses of the Trust from the start, was that it never appeared to me to have natural leaders. Barnie to me, seemed a reluctant chair at times & perhaps a better orator/political type "animal", could be a better leader.
Then, you have Rick Everitt as the most obvious candidate, not afraid to be outspoken & call a spade a spade, yet possibly doesn't appear to want to take a leading role in The Trust.
You therefore get the situation we now have.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but there is absolutely no doubt that a splinter group will undermine the standing of The Trust and already has up to a point.
If The Trust are happy to be undermined, then they should go ahead, as suggested.
If they are not, then The Trust should be taking the lead & the others, should take slightly more of a back seat, within the Trust or they should take positions of greater power, within The Trust.
I know this post doesn't help, but The Trust can't have it both ways.
They either are or are not the fans principal mouthpiece.
The only person that I can see has skipped steps in the diplomatic process is RD. Have I missed something ?
Where has RD done anything majorly wrong yet, at least in how he has dealt with the fans?
He's been around for what? 2 months? So far we've had a video on the website where he, KM and RM talk about the takeover and what happens next (admittedly in very broad terms), we then had an interview with the BBC and there was the VIP meeting with KM which RD presumably sanctioned. There's been plenty of communication. Let's not confuse a a differing opinion on how things should be done with behaving poorly.
This is a tricky one to me & with the greatest respect to all, it is hard to comment on, without risking offence.
However, I would say for me, one of the weaknesses of the Trust from the start, was that it never appeared to me to have natural leaders. Barnie to me, seemed a reluctant chair at times & perhaps a better orator/political type "animal", could be a better leader.
Then, you have Rick Everitt as the most obvious candidate, not afraid to be outspoken & call a spade a spade, yet possibly doesn't appear to want to take a leading role in The Trust.
You therefore get the situation we now have.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but there is absolutely no doubt that a splinter group will undermine the standing of The Trust and already has up to a point.
If The Trust are happy to be undermined, then they should go ahead, as suggested.
If they are not, then The Trust should be taking the lead & the others, should take slightly more of a back seat, within the Trust or they should take positions of greater power, within The Trust.
I know this post doesn't help, but The Trust can't have it both ways.
They either are or are not the fans principal mouthpiece.
Comments
This is not intended, in any way, to diminish the great work done by the many at the time of the VP, but the trust, I thought, was there to do this now.
and instead its like the valley party are re forming
The only effective way to challenge a privately owned company operating within the law is to stop buying their products or services - and we are hopefully, quite rightly, not going to do that because it would damage the very thing we are trying to protect. Dialogue is good so that we understand the plans and from where I'm sitting the dialogue and general communication coming out of the boardroom is better now that it has been for years. But whatever RD is planning to do will, with almost certainty, be done. To continue that dialogue there needs to be one united voice - there is no room in my opinion for this group and the Trust.
I will say this - the Trust would be stronger if those supporters meeting before the Huddersfield game had done so as part of a Trust working party. It might have helped realign the perception many of us have that they're prioritising protecting the relationship over addressing the issues. Certainly there's a need for more proactivity, and I suspect this is why the meeting happened as it did; I think we're weaker divided, sadly.
Add the fact that I actually believe it is a pointless exercise. What exactly is it going to achieve? powell has gone and no amount of hits on Survey Monkey are going to bring him back.
I feel the priority is to establish a public airing of the football strategy that led to such a sharp difference between Powell and the board. Just because Powell couldn't work within it doesn't necessarily mean it won't work to our benefit, and despite my own misgivings over RD he deserves the chance to articulate his direction for the club. Then, if necessary, we can get antagonistic - but we really will need a wider group to make that effective.
Some people will fail to see things, sometimes because they won't engage, and sometimes because things are difficult to understand, and sometimes because their questions aren't answered, and sometimes because things are really actually unclear.
Indeed the confusion about the supporters initiative mirrors the confusion about the changes at Charlton.
I want the trust to be the voice and leading every communication there is to RD and his people
Was the meeting already planned or convened after he was dismissed?
The risk will always be the accusation that the Trust either does not represent the real view of the fans, or that it is not telepathic and able to have an instant response to the obvious concerns of the fans. It is to the credit to the Trust board that they are sensitive to those constraints, and don't want to decide everything on the hoof.
I think the present context of where Charlton Athletic are at right now as a club has created the present phenomena of the initiative. It is out in the open, not sinister.
The Trust becomes undermined by the gang of 20.As I said before if this is a battle then I expect the Trust to lead it not abrogate responsibility to a new group.
The Trust is a fans pressure group stop worrying about prosesses and procedures bring dissaffected into the the Trust and make them work with you instead of beside you.
Oh, nearly forgot, he sacked Chris Powell. Some support that some don't. He won't be the first manager we sack, won't be the last. We are bottom of the table, six wins all season, lowest scorers out of 92. New owner comes in, sacks underperforming Manager. Surprised?
I am not surprised some fans are concerned with some of these events but it's too early for me to start going all Wolfie Smith.
I don't really understand why, if all you are asking for at this stage is a meeting with RD to clarify his plans, that would be unlikely to fail if it came from the trust? As much as it's good for your kudos on Charlton Life, I doubt RD gives two hoots that some of you used to work for the club or were involved in a local election campaign getting on for thirty years ago. Surely if the approach comes through the official supporters trust, it adds legitimacy to the approach and is more likely to be taken seriously?
This gives me the impression that you are already gearing up for the things to turn ugly. That's conjecture on my part, I admit, but if I'm correct then minds are being made up too soon. IMO, the correct steps here are official approaches from the Trust to the Club requesting dialogue with the Owner specifically regarding his plans for Charlton in terms of performance targets and how we will fit into the network and what effect that will have signing and selling players and what are JR and KM's roles, responsibilities and powers.
IF we get answers we don't like or IF there is a flat out refusal to enter dialogue, THEN it may be time to get a bit more militant about it and, without knowing the ins and outs of their charter, I appreciate that might be tricky to be done under the banner of the Trust.
It seems to me we may have skipped a few steps in the diplomatic process here and are already readying troops for mobilisation.
However, I would say for me, one of the weaknesses of the Trust from the start, was that it never appeared to me to have natural leaders. Barnie to me, seemed a reluctant chair at times & perhaps a better orator/political type "animal", could be a better leader.
Then, you have Rick Everitt as the most obvious candidate, not afraid to be outspoken & call a spade a spade, yet possibly doesn't appear to want to take a leading role in The Trust.
You therefore get the situation we now have.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but there is absolutely no doubt that a splinter group will undermine the standing of The Trust and already has up to a point.
If The Trust are happy to be undermined, then they should go ahead, as suggested.
If they are not, then The Trust should be taking the lead & the others, should take slightly more of a back seat, within the Trust or they should take positions of greater power, within The Trust.
I know this post doesn't help, but The Trust can't have it both ways.
They either are or are not the fans principal mouthpiece.
He's been around for what? 2 months? So far we've had a video on the website where he, KM and RM talk about the takeover and what happens next (admittedly in very broad terms), we then had an interview with the BBC and there was the VIP meeting with KM which RD presumably sanctioned. There's been plenty of communication. Let's not confuse a a differing opinion on how things should be done with behaving poorly.