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?
Not sure how to put this without it sounding rude, which I'm not trying to be, but just interested to know how?
My understanding was that the trust was formed to create a voice for all supporters and to challenge and/or question decisions of those running the club. It was also formed to create a dialogue, and there appears to have been evidence of dialogue taking place on several topics.
This seems to be another group, incorporating members of the Trust, but with the same aims. So is this not just an extended version of the the Trust? And is it not the case that the Trust would be stronger with the people mentioned above included in it?
You are going to get roasted for questioning this.
I doubt it very much but then again he asked a fair question in a reasonable way rather than making yet another snide remark.
“In the first instance, the group is seeking an urgent face-to-face meeting with Roland Duchatelet or Katrien Miere in order try to get a better understanding of the owner’s intentions and report back to the wider support.
If we are unable to enter into a useful dialogue with the owner or his representative then it is our intention to call a public meeting in early April to take matters forward.”
The Trust said just three days ago:
“We urge the owner and management of the club to remember that fans are not just customers, but stakeholders in the club. We therefore call upon Roland Duchatelet to as quickly as possible address the fans (ideally in person) on his short and long term plans for improving the club’s situation. We would respectfully suggest that he should make it clear what criteria were applied in the decision to sack Chris Powell; whether a different type of football management system is to be installed; and in this system, who will be held accountable for recruitment and team selection, whether they are based at the Valley or elsewhere. We further ask Mr Duchatelet to clarify whether he expects Charlton to avoid relegation this season with the squad currently available, or whether he acknowledges that the squad must and will be further strengthened with loan signings.”
The only material distinction that I can discern is that the new group is being rather more vigorous and clearly signalling it won’t be fobbed off. That’s a good thing, but I do think the new initiative does somewhat undermine the Trust. It's as if the supporters are saying the Trust can't be trusted (sorry!) with really big issues; this can't help their credibility with the Board as a representative group.
I can't see Roland actually giving a hoot!! He'll lay down the plans for the Riland reign and that'll be it. He'll go forward with them whether the Trust/Board/Fans like it or not!!
Why are some people calling this new group a splinter group ? It seems to me to be a resurrection of the Valley Party and not a breakaway Trust grouping. The Trust has two people within the new group so I don't quite understand why it is perceived as being somehow in competition with the Trust. Alliances are needed as is political acumen. Different people bring different skills and having a group of people experienced in political strategies surely is a welcome addition? Both groups currently have their work cut out and I wish them both good fortune as they seek to get our Charlton back.
Why are some people calling this new group a splinter group ? It seems to me to be a resurrection of the Valley Party and not a breakaway Trust grouping. The Trust has two people within the new group so I don't quite understand why it is perceived as being somehow in competition with the Trust. Alliances are needed as is political acumen. Different people bring different skills and having a group of people experienced in political strategies surely is a welcome addition? Both groups currently have their work cut out and I wish them both good fortune as they seek to get our Charlton back.
What you say about different skills is correct & maybe they can work together, but it's quite apparent that if members of The Trust are taking a back seat position in the new group, then the new group is "the Power" and not The Trust.
I don't necessarily have an issue with this, but let's not pretend otherwise.
If that's not the case then it's akin to saying Nick Clegg is/should be the PM in the coalition.
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.
but the trust cant because how its structured
I am now well confused
I was very confused too earlier today but it is becoming clearer with every post on this thread! The questions and challenges are all legitimate and need to be answered with actions and words over the course of this month.
I look forward to discussing this at the next Trust Board meeting. Perhaps things will be clearer on and off the pitch by then?
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.
Flower it up however you like Seth, but you haven't answered the question. So, whatever the concerns are, and I assume your activity here is based upon your favorite topic of us being the feeder club for Standard Liege......have the questions first and most importantly been aked by the two collectives that are formerly recognized by the football club? Simple question.....have they put forward the views of this new collective and have those questions fallen upon deaf ears? Or have the new collective formed up.....(and I assume they all just happened to be in the Lib or some other pub on Wednesday by pure coincidence), and decided that they ought to be, and I coin a phrase, the new Voice of the Valley? I would guess.....the answer is no and they have bypassed the recognized channels because they think they can do better.
Why are some people calling this new group a splinter group ? It seems to me to be a resurrection of the Valley Party and not a breakaway Trust grouping. The Trust has two people within the new group so I don't quite understand why it is perceived as being somehow in competition with the Trust. Alliances are needed as is political acumen. Different people bring different skills and having a group of people experienced in political strategies surely is a welcome addition? Both groups currently have their work cut out and I wish them both good fortune as they seek to get our Charlton back.
There are two main concerns for me around this. Firstly, what do we reasonably expect from Roland Duchatelet in terms of fan consultation and what will he agree to go along with. How many groups can we expect him to enter into a dialog with? Ultimately, he owns the club and can decide exactly whom he will or won't talk with. I'd imagine that most football club owners would be conducive to discussions with one group, but where would they draw the line two, three, four...? This guy's a busy man, even with the best will in the world he can't talk to everyone. The second issue that follows on from this is, how representative is this group of the fans? I'm sure they are all good, intelligent people, powerful communicators and Addicks to the end, but why should they have an audience when other's don't? The Trust has, quite rightly, put a lot of energy into finding out what fans think/feel. They should be leading any efforts to put these messages across to the owner, and that means rather more than having two "board members" as signatories of another group.
I don't know the constitutional issues that appear to be holding the Trust back, and quite possibly I don't want to. However, it strikes me as odd that an organisation whose number one aim is to, "To give the fans a voice and represent their interests in the running of the Club" is happy for a self appointed (albeit well meaning) group to take the lead on such dialog. The Trust advertises itself as "Best Value For A Fiver", but as a member am I really getting best value? It strikes me that I might have better value from spending that fiver on beer and letting the unrepresentative 21 Guns salute Roland on my behalf.
I am sure that those in the 21 do not aim to undermine The Trust. However, from where I sit that appears to be exactly what has happened.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a group of supporters seeking to improve the communication between the fans and the club. The stated aims are a fine vision statement.
The challenges I have - What are their specific goals? What is their mandate? Who determined such mandate? What is their level of support? Who exactly do they purport to represent? What is their governance?
The latter element is particularly important because it will "govern" the nature of the dialogue with the club. As more than one of the names listed within the group will very well know much of what goes on within a commercial organization is confidential.
If you wish to discuss Powells’ departure, then without the strictest code of control the group will rightly be shown the door. Even if such control were in place any matters relating to Powell are subject to confidential discussions between an employer and employee. Any breach would leave the club open to legal remedy. In any event who would benefit from any such information as it certainly could not be disseminated to a wider fan base.
Similarly the moment the Group seek information on any part of the business strategy it is stepping on areas of commercially sensitive information. In view of the stated representation and their links to potential market competitors such discussions are questionable at best. Again who would benefit from any such information as it could not be disseminated to a wider fan base.
While I welcome the proactive approach for the new group to have any meaningful credibility it needs to set out very clear terms of reference and why a third fan representative group needs to be the vehicle for such terms of reference.
If there is a justifiable need for a 3rd group they need to clarify how the different groups are going to work?
If I have a question I wish to be put to RD why would I take my question to this group rather than the Trust, rather than the Fans Forum?
How are the group expecting the club to manage these different groups? Without some clarity or demarcation are you expecting the club to meet with and respond to potentially the same questions posed by three different groups? That on the face of it, is unreasonable
Similarly without such clarity there must be the fear of mixed messages, confusion and division as different groups interpret clubs responses in different ways.
As usual the devil is the detail but crucially as this new collective has chosen to force itself into the realm of club and supporter communication it has a very clear responsibility to ensure it does not undermine or devalue the hard work undertaken by the Trust and the Fans Forum nor dilute their existing sphere of influence.
To do so will serve no one including the club itself.
a 1000 member survey is a very large sample. The size of the sample obviously is relative to the size of the target. Assuming a CAFC target of 25,000 a survey of 500 would have been adequate but 1000 is even better. I did surveys of targets up to 300,000 with a 1000 sample. This resulted in a survey with a 2 point error ratio. So if it came out 52-48 the 2 point error could make it even or 54-46.
I took part in the first Trust survey and found it very poor. I've looked at them since and they have improved very much. A minor point is that overseas people often cannot take part as there are specific questions on your visits to the Valley, and no option to bypass it.
My major concern with this new group of self-elected people is where on earth were you when you were actually needed? The time for this was under the disastrous ownership of the previous clowns, when the very future of the club was in real doubt. As far as I am concerned, I welcome RD & his new ideas and he has my full support. The guy has barely been here 2 months, he has given us much needed financial security, and he has been very open about his plans. FFS give him a chance before you start jumping all over him & demanding to know what he has for breakfast every day.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a group of supporters seeking to improve the communication between the fans and the club. The stated aims are a fine vision statement.
The challenges I have - What are their specific goals? What is their mandate? Who determined such mandate? What is their level of support? Who exactly do they purport to represent? What is their governance?
The latter element is particularly important because it will "govern" the nature of the dialogue with the club. As more than one of the names listed within the group will very well know much of what goes on within a commercial organization is confidential.
If you wish to discuss Powells’ departure, then without the strictest code of control the group will rightly be shown the door. Even if such control were in place any matters relating to Powell are subject to confidential discussions between an employer and employee. Any breach would leave the club open to legal remedy. In any event who would benefit from any such information as it certainly could not be disseminated to a wider fan base.
Similarly the moment the Group seek information on any part of the business strategy it is stepping on areas of commercially sensitive information. In view of the stated representation and their links to potential market competitors such discussions are questionable at best. Again who would benefit from any such information as it could not be disseminated to a wider fan base.
While I welcome the proactive approach for the new group to have any meaningful credibility it needs to set out very clear terms of reference and why a third fan representative group needs to be the vehicle for such terms of reference.
If there is a justifiable need for a 3rd group they need to clarify how the different groups are going to work?
If I have a question I wish to be put to RD why would I take my question to this group rather than the Trust, rather than the Fans Forum?
How are the group expecting the club to manage these different groups? Without some clarity or demarcation are you expecting the club to meet with and respond to potentially the same questions posed by three different groups? That on the face of it, is unreasonable
Similarly without such clarity there must be the fear of mixed messages, confusion and division as different groups interpret clubs responses in different ways.
As usual the devil is the detail but crucially as this new collective has chosen to force itself into the realm of club and supporter communication it has a very clear responsibility to ensure it does not undermine or devalue the hard work undertaken by the Trust and the Fans Forum nor dilute their existing sphere of influence.
To do so will serve no one including the club itself.
I am one of the people who believe that we are now literally fighting for the soul of The Valley. I fully understand the questions and concerns but I do believe that the emphasis of umbrella groups is different. I look at the names of the people involved and I feel very heartened. If they can form a proactive grouping without factionalism and infighting, it will be quite an achievement and I wish them well. I just want my Charlton back.
My major concern with this new group of self-elected people is where on earth were you when you were actually needed? The time for this was under the disastrous ownership of the previous clowns, when the very future of the club was in real doubt. As far as I am concerned, I welcome RD & his new ideas and he has my full support. The guy has barely been here 2 months, he has given us much needed financial security, and he has been very open about his plans. FFS give him a chance before you start jumping all over him & demanding to know what he has for breakfast every day.
Do you think that Slater and Jiminez would have listened to someone they had already sacked?
I am pleased to learn of this meeting given the history of the attendees. At least I don't feel like we are being taken completely for a ride again whilst our fan base rationalises the situation. Doing this as a separate approach from the CAST is a smart move. It links very nicely to the Valley Party and a history of direct action whilst also keeping the Trust clean. The fact that both bodies may support the same aims downstream will also give some weight and unanimity to decisions if that's where we end up.
If it only encourages more open dialogue, then fine. If it makes Duchatlet think for a minute more before taking what he knows will be unpopular decisions, then great. I do agree with the comments about why this didn't happen under Jiminez and Slater but it's not as if there wasn't widespread criticism and whilst there was very little communication from the hostage-takers, we had little to complain about in year one, only poor home form in year two and we all knew they were financially hobbled in year three with few options.
We should never forget that this is our Club. The owners will come and go but it's our blood-line that remains. Without the supporters it becomes a pub team.
I am one of the people who believe that we are now literally fighting for the soul of The Valley. I fully understand the questions and concerns but I do believe that the emphasis of umbrella groups is different. I look at the names of the people involved and I feel very heartened. If they can form a proactive grouping without factionalism and infighting, it will be quite an achievement and I wish them well. I just want my Charlton back.
Personally the only way this group will be treated seriously by the owners is if they join the trust and talk as one. How many groups do you need? A Bromley one? An East Kent one? If I was Roland I would tell this other group to "Wind their necks in" and only deal with the trust. (That's if he wants to speak to the trust of course)
Also if the trust cannot see that they are being undermined here, then personally they will lose all the goodwill, renewals and new members rapidly. You only have to read this thread to see that alone and from a lot of sensible and respected people on here. Why would you pay a fiver after this!
My major concern with this new group of self-elected people is where on earth were you when you were actually needed? The time for this was under the disastrous ownership of the previous clowns, when the very future of the club was in real doubt. As far as I am concerned, I welcome RD & his new ideas and he has my full support. The guy has barely been here 2 months, he has given us much needed financial security, and he has been very open about his plans. FFS give him a chance before you start jumping all over him & demanding to know what he has for breakfast every day.
Do you think that Slater and Jiminez would have listened to someone they had already sacked?
Personally the only way this group will be treated seriously by the owners is if they join the trust and talk as one. How many groups do you need? A Bromley one? An East Kent one? ...
I have two season ticket holders and two red card holders living under my roof. I demand that Roland comes around to discuss his business with my family ;-)
I'm a trust member and believe in it's purpose. I think they've done well on the marketing side of things and are well established in a relatively short period if time.
BUT
This new group is not a splinter group, it seems to me it's a group that wants to be aggressively seeking answers without potentially damaging the long term objectives and vision of the trust. I kind of see them as an emergency group that will be in and out relatively quickly in relation to specific issues. Maybe some will hang around and join the trust after, maybe not.
Personally the only way this group will be treated seriously by the owners is if they join the trust and talk as one. How many groups do you need? A Bromley one? An East Kent one? ...
I have two season ticket holders and two red card holders living under my roof. I demand that Roland comes around to discuss his business with my family ;-)
I suspect if you formed a "fill the pot holes" supporters group your wish may come true
Personally the only way this group will be treated seriously by the owners is if they join the trust and talk as one. How many groups do you need? A Bromley one? An East Kent one? ...
I have two season ticket holders and two red card holders living under my roof. I demand that Roland comes around to discuss his business with my family ;-)
Yes, me too while he's at it. I have many years of finance & management experience that I'm sure he could benefit from. Ask him to catch a flight to Dubai International Airport & I'll meet him there, to save him catching a taxi.
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 ?
Yes, mate. I guess my subsequent responses indicate that I think these were not enough, a view that seems to be echoed by others including the splinter group itself (which is exactly what it is, despite flannel to the contrary). All a bit Neville Chamberlain wringing his hands at the nasty Mr Hitler (no comparison to RD intended) while pugnacious Winston Churchill bumps him aside and says leave it to me.
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.
Great post. I'd have thought its a bit early for suicide bombers, though perhaps the CLO (Charlton Liberation Organisation) disagree. The alternative explanation for the formation of the CLO is that's it's members don't trust the Trust to get the job done. Great shame really given the hard work some people appear to have put into getting it up and running.
I'm a trust member and believe in it's purpose. I think they've done well on the marketing side of things and are well established in a relatively short period if time.
BUT
This new group is not a splinter group, it seems to me it's a group that wants to be aggressively seeking answers without potentially damaging the long term objectives and vision of the trust. I kind of see them as an emergency group that will be in and out relatively quickly in relation to specific issues. Maybe some will hang around and join the trust after, maybe not.
That's kind of how I'm seeing it too. The Trust are (one of) the formalised methods of communication but this group has more of a Black Ops role. It's sufficiently remote from CAST to provide plausible deniability if it gets nasty and we have to resort to protests and direct action.
I see them as a sort of very low rent Dirty Dozen... :-)
I'm really not sure about this. I've voiced my opinion elsewhere that I am cautiously optimistic with the approach of our new owners although it is clear that most do not agree with me. That's fine, none of us can be sure at this stage. The one thing most of us agree upon is that we wanted Chris to take us forward, but that's not going to happen.
My concern, as others have already voiced, is that this 'action' appears to undermine the Trust. I do not fully agree with everything the Trust has done, but I am a fully paid member and support most of the aims. Having a splinter group does not seem to fit, in fact it will lead a number of people to withdraw from supporting the Trust when thinking of renewing their membership.
The aim of the new group is '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.' This, to me, should be the work of the Trust. Otherwise, what is the point of the Trust?
Largeaddick is quite correct in stating that 'any clarification on what the plans are and what the future truly holds can only be a good thing so let's hope you can all get round the table and thrash things out for the good of all concerned.' However, ignoring the fact that at this stage I do not see the necessity, this is surely the work of the Trust?
I will definitely be re-considering my membership moving forward, I want to support the Trust but see no point if it leaves key communication issues to a separate group.
If the Trust goes, then I support the new group instead, but splitting into two will just weaken the argument.
Comments
Pessimistic I know.
I don't necessarily have an issue with this, but let's not pretend otherwise.
If that's not the case then it's akin to saying Nick Clegg is/should be the PM in the coalition.
I look forward to discussing this at the next Trust Board meeting. Perhaps things will be clearer on and off the pitch by then?
I don't know the constitutional issues that appear to be holding the Trust back, and quite possibly I don't want to. However, it strikes me as odd that an organisation whose number one aim is to, "To give the fans a voice and represent their interests in the running of the Club" is happy for a self appointed (albeit well meaning) group to take the lead on such dialog. The Trust advertises itself as "Best Value For A Fiver", but as a member am I really getting best value? It strikes me that I might have better value from spending that fiver on beer and letting the unrepresentative 21 Guns salute Roland on my behalf.
I am sure that those in the 21 do not aim to undermine The Trust. However, from where I sit that appears to be exactly what has happened.
The challenges I have - What are their specific goals? What is their mandate? Who determined such mandate? What is their level of support? Who exactly do they purport to represent? What is their governance?
The latter element is particularly important because it will "govern" the nature of the dialogue with the club. As more than one of the names listed within the group will very well know much of what goes on within a commercial organization is confidential.
If you wish to discuss Powells’ departure, then without the strictest code of control the group will rightly be shown the door. Even if such control were in place any matters relating to Powell are subject to confidential discussions between an employer and employee. Any breach would leave the club open to legal remedy. In any event who would benefit from any such information as it certainly could not be disseminated to a wider fan base.
Similarly the moment the Group seek information on any part of the business strategy it is stepping on areas of commercially sensitive information. In view of the stated representation and their links to potential market competitors such discussions are questionable at best. Again who would benefit from any such information as it could not be disseminated to a wider fan base.
While I welcome the proactive approach for the new group to have any meaningful credibility it needs to set out very clear terms of reference and why a third fan representative group needs to be the vehicle for such terms of reference.
If there is a justifiable need for a 3rd group they need to clarify how the different groups are going to work?
If I have a question I wish to be put to RD why would I take my question to this group rather than the Trust, rather than the Fans Forum?
How are the group expecting the club to manage these different groups? Without some clarity or demarcation are you expecting the club to meet with and respond to potentially the same questions posed by three different groups? That on the face of it, is unreasonable
Similarly without such clarity there must be the fear of mixed messages, confusion and division as different groups interpret clubs responses in different ways.
As usual the devil is the detail but crucially as this new collective has chosen to force itself into the realm of club and supporter communication it has a very clear responsibility to ensure it does not undermine or devalue the hard work undertaken by the Trust and the Fans Forum nor dilute their existing sphere of influence.
To do so will serve no one including the club itself.
there is nothing said on here that couldn't have been asked for by the trust and he trust alone
are all those in the new group trust members
can some award stig his very own post of the month
that is bang on the money
a 1000 member survey is a very large sample. The size of the sample obviously is relative to the size of the target. Assuming a CAFC target of 25,000 a survey of 500 would have been adequate but 1000 is even better. I did surveys of targets up to 300,000 with a 1000 sample. This resulted in a survey with a 2 point error ratio. So if it came out 52-48 the 2 point error could make it even or 54-46.
I took part in the first Trust survey and found it very poor. I've looked at them since and they have improved very much. A minor point is that overseas people often cannot take part as there are specific questions on your visits to the Valley, and no option to bypass it.
Not sure I agree with this group, as feel there will now just be two impotent groups fighting for RD time and doubt he is interested in either group.
If it only encourages more open dialogue, then fine. If it makes Duchatlet think for a minute more before taking what he knows will be unpopular decisions, then great. I do agree with the comments about why this didn't happen under Jiminez and Slater but it's not as if there wasn't widespread criticism and whilst there was very little communication from the hostage-takers, we had little to complain about in year one, only poor home form in year two and we all knew they were financially hobbled in year three with few options.
We should never forget that this is our Club. The owners will come and go but it's our blood-line that remains. Without the supporters it becomes a pub team.
Also if the trust cannot see that they are being undermined here, then personally they will lose all the goodwill, renewals and new members rapidly. You only have to read this thread to see that alone and from a lot of sensible and respected people on here. Why would you pay a fiver after this!
I'm a trust member and believe in it's purpose. I think they've done well on the marketing side of things and are well established in a relatively short period if time.
BUT
This new group is not a splinter group, it seems to me it's a group that wants to be aggressively seeking answers without potentially damaging the long term objectives and vision of the trust. I kind of see them as an emergency group that will be in and out relatively quickly in relation to specific issues. Maybe some will hang around and join the trust after, maybe not.
I see them as a sort of very low rent Dirty Dozen... :-)
My concern, as others have already voiced, is that this 'action' appears to undermine the Trust. I do not fully agree with everything the Trust has done, but I am a fully paid member and support most of the aims. Having a splinter group does not seem to fit, in fact it will lead a number of people to withdraw from supporting the Trust when thinking of renewing their membership.
The aim of the new group is '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.' This, to me, should be the work of the Trust. Otherwise, what is the point of the Trust?
Largeaddick is quite correct in stating that 'any clarification on what the plans are and what the future truly holds can only be a good thing so let's hope you can all get round the table and thrash things out for the good of all concerned.' However, ignoring the fact that at this stage I do not see the necessity, this is surely the work of the Trust?
I will definitely be re-considering my membership moving forward, I want to support the Trust but see no point if it leaves key communication issues to a separate group.
If the Trust goes, then I support the new group instead, but splitting into two will just weaken the argument.