A lot of the criticism of this poll comes from people who obviously don't like the result. They should have voted and made their voices heard. And how do people think the Trust is going to be able to let the board know what fans are thinking if they don't ask them? However, in the interest of 'balance', I do think it would be interesting to have another poll at the end of the season to see if people have changed their minds about the issues - that would show that the Trust really wants to represent the fans' mood and that there's no 'agenda'.
Lol no, people just don't see what difference it makes having the poll... As if you will have any influence with it on Roland in the future.
That applies to any activity tho surely?
No not really, fans complaining got the cross bar/north stand issue sorted didnt it ?
You will find a number of my own and trust detractors who I treat with respect because they offer me that in return, it's a two way street. I do however try to be professional as you put it, I'm not perfect I have my faults. It's quite a challenge though in the age of social media, but I am very grateful to the Trust team for their backing and to the personal support of a number of Lifers.
I think it's a shame that Ben and I don't get on and I do regret what happened which I felt was a misunderstanding - and I take my share of the blame for that though - not because I am sentimental but I feel he has a good deal to give the Trust and that our cause as fans would be better served if we collaborated.
I am open to any ideas that would help the Museum, this and other historical initiatives are just as important as new ideas and innovations, tradition and history by and large are what makes things special rather than franchise and the generic - I'm sure there is an apt philosophical quote for this. It's wrong to say the Trust is backward looking though, if you look at our work it simply doesn't add up. In short I am a fan of the museum and of course the Trust just like STIG. Perhaps some of us are a bit sensitive about the Trust but that is because we passionately believe in it, and put a heck of a lot of energy into it.
This is the reason I haven't joined the trust! They Should be forward thinking and stop living in the past what's done is done. So unless the trust buys out rd its never going to change things. I may sound negative But please prove me wrong
This is the reason I haven't joined the trust! They Should be forward thinking and stop living in the past what's done is done. So unless the trust buys out rd its never going to change things. I may sound negative But please prove me wrong
I don't understand all this stuff about the past. Yes, the survey asked whether people agreed with the Powell sacking but it also asked:
1. their future plans for buying a season ticket 2. their views on Charlton's future under the network system 3. whether they thought Riga could keep us up in the next two months
Can someone explain why it is now being derided as living in the past ?
The Trust is doing some great work and I am fully supportive. Keep it up ladies and gents. For me at least, the time you sink into this is very worthwhile and appreciated.
The survey results are interesting and informative, and as a democratic trust I fully understand why you would choose to do surveys and hope you continue to do so in future.
I am also excited about seeing the opened museum in due course. Great idea.
I don't see CAST as living in the past, rather than recognising that the path to the future depends somewhat on the route you've previously taken.
It may be that sacking Chris Powell was either the best or the worst thing that Roland could have done, but for the Board of CAFC to understand what the fanbase makes of their decisions must surely be a good thing?
CAST has just asked those of us who are it's members whether we agree or not with some of the Club's decisions. How can CAST hope to represent our interests if it doesn't know what they are?
Seriously read was a board member until a few days ago. But I see that now he's "left" you can use him as your attack dog and then deny any responsibility.
It's not often I get a giggle out of one of your posts, but the thought that Barney and the trust have unleashed an "attack dog" to gnaw at the ankles of the virtuous Sir Ben, is quite deliciously bonkers. I wonder if you're suffering from attention-whore-deficit syndrome, and it's making you imagine things. I really doubt anyone on the trust board would plot and scheme like that. You shouldn't judge others by your own low standards. I doubt they'd even notice your existence if it wasn't for the sniping.
When you, and it is you, criticise the Museum you are losing the plot big time
You do this a lot. You pretend someone has taken an outrageous position and then berate them for it, despite knowing the point you are taking them to task for didn't happen. In this case SR merely made a point about the irony of your criticising them for not being forward looking, given your enthusiasm for your museum. Museums, you see are often associated with displaying historical ("from the past") artefacts. Just to be clear SR was not having a pop at the Natural History Museum, the V&A or the Ben Hayes Memorial Charlton Museum. I look forward to your seething retort, in due course.
And this is precisely why we ought to put down petty squarrels and get behind a shared single vision for our club. This baiting and sniping is so sad and so petty.
Firstly, I suspect Razil would be criticised for being aloof and lacking the common touch if he was relentlessly 'professional', no less criticised for being himself. I'm a member of the Trust, I'd rather be fronted by someone who wore his heart on his sleeve and made mistakes in his presentation than someone who struggled to present a passion. It's that passion I'm most likely to fall behind, but it's a personal view that probably isn't shared by all.
Henry has his own inimitable style but undoubtedly has input that would be invaluable to the Trust if only a way could be found for him to offer it and for it to be received constructively. Personality clashes between people who can build the supporters' representation leads to nothing but division, and with the G21 group seeking their own representation we're at best in danger of looking disorganised, at worst of looking a shambles. Not great when our early meetings with KM will shape our future relationship with the club.
Henry, Razil - I wish you'd find a way to bury the hatchet and focus on the things you agree on rather than the things you don't.
The irony was that there was no attack on the museum! Raising voices upsets some and grabs the attention of others but misquoting or misinterpreting what people write on a message board is something else. And can be easily revisited the following day.
Grrrrr woof!
We started the Trust survey programme some 16 months ago for several reasons - to balance the views of 20 enthusiastic fans meeting in a pub to set up the Trust; to provide guidance as the Trust grew and subsequent legitamacy; and as a simple adaptation of the old style petition - as a way to gather fan email addresses. And of course to listen. The first survey was poor in design but subsequent ones were much improved.
Bark (wags tail)
Perhaps half of the 5,000 Trust fan contacts have come through surveys and very few unsubscribe afterwards. Thank you Prague (more wagging tail and inappropriate climbing up leg) for the acknowledgement as I did put in effort to assist the gathering of 7,500 survey responses over seven surveys. And Weegie (delete! Woof) did indeed assist raising the bar on question design particularly when we set up the Trust feedback survey. It was important to be as precise as possible when listening to fans about Trust direction while reading some of the suggestions made on here throughout 2013. Woof!
There was no Trust 2 years ago and there is now one which is one of the biggest in the Championship.... Grrrrr
Not mine, not Razil's - belongs to the members - simples... Woof (runs off to cause havoc in Leeds on Tuesday)
So ,seriously_red, what level of "attack" dog are you? A Level 1 Threat Dog; a Level 2 Defence Dog; or Razil's very own Level 3 Executive Personal Protection Dog?
If the trust arranged a strippers night in the Lib then the member numbers would increase, all fans will be united as one and Henry might finally relax.
If the trust arranged a strippers night in the Lib then the member numbers would increase, all fans will be united as one and Henry might finally relax.
Would need to be some male strippers for the ladies on here, so on that night, you can count me out.. :-)
There appears to be a considerable overlap between this thread, "Statement from the Supporters", "Message from the Board" and now the "break even" threads
All seem to address communications to, from and about the club and the broadest possible comments on the content thereof. In terms of communication, for the avoidance of doubt, there is an established democratic vehicle for supporters to express their views to the club and its owners. It is entirely up to people whether they choose to use it or not.
I am not sure why those who choose not to, feel they have the right to malign such channel when they seem unable to offer any real alternative. Regular derogatory interaction I suppose must give some indulgent momentary satisfaction but really offers nothing constructive.
The survey conducted after Powells' departure was entirely valid for communication purposes alone and unsurprisingly reflected the high esteem in which he was held. I did not participate and like to think I have a measured view of his departure but recognise many have serious concerns over the reasons for and the manner of his leaving.
All forms of mass communication have flaws and I can pick as many holes in the survey as anybody but it is what it is. The result may have been "bleedin obvious" but it reflects a body of supporter opinion at a point in time which unlike other comment cannot be easily dismissed as random "noises off", and one the club should have to address. In terms of supporter representation I have known marketing people ecstatic with a 2% response, on that basis the numbers are not too bad.
In my humble opinion there is a tremendous opportunity for a vibrant and constructive dialogue with the club and the new owners. Ironically judging by the litany of negative comments it seems the Trust and the Club now both sit in exactly the same space.
There are many supporters who have expressed genuine concerns over "losing" their club. Rather than endlessly dump such angst on any and every message board or blog people happen to frequent, why not constructively empower the established channels to communicate what exactly that means to the people who can actually respond to such concerns.
For all of the "turmoil" surrounding our current circumstances someone has stepped in to fund the clubs continued trading, assume responsibility for historic debts and seeks to establish the "business" on a sound financial footing. All of which may be of absolutely no interest to you but which even with the briefest of consideration will surely register as seriously impacting the quality of football you see.
His vision for establishing such sound financial footing however involves an innovative and creative approach which may or may not impact the very nature of the club.
Therein lies the opportunity to contribute and shape the clubs' future. I have seen much speculation concerning feeder and club network business models. People do not understand them, some people do not want to understand them while others question their value. All based on absolutely no experience of either, which is why it is just speculation - there is no existing comparable business model.
RD has a vision and a series of concepts to deliver the operating value he seeks. What it means in terms of precise deliverables and consequences is yet to be defined. I suggest nothing is cast in stone. It is a new approach and to a degree a voyage of discovery. It will present its challenges, its successes and its failures. Every new approach does.
I spent the last decade of my career building new products many of which 80% of the rest of the business deemed unnecessary, unprofitable or doomed to fail. Nearly all, when properly funded, delivered value. Naysayers have their value but cannot inhibit your ability to meet the needs of a changing market. In case you had not noticed the world of professional football today is scarcely recognisable from 20-30yrs ago.
We simply cannot keep ignoring we have followed the traditional model during a decade of disappointment. To keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result is one definition of commercial insanity.
If there is to be a new future then I suggest there is an opportunity to establish some key principles in moulding how the network and feeder system might best work for us all. RD & KM have expressed a willingness to talk.
It is not about side swipes at all & sundry, simply churning all those things you do not want, but taking the time and trouble to communicate to a group of people interested in taking your views to the club and owner.
Telling people what you do not want achieves nothing because it gives NOTHING for them to achieve. Telling people what you do want, what you want them to achieve, sets them targets and creates a dialogue as to how and when such targets might be achieved.
We are going to have an open mind. The modern game is a much more transitory beast - 25% of our last 200 signings were on loan - 25% originated from overseas. Such trends are likely to increase. The role of the Head Coach is likely to be evermore prevalent. The role of the "UK football manager" is virtually unique in global sport.
In US sport across the NFL (General Managers & Head Coaches), MLB & NHL (Front Offices and Head Coaches, and MBA (mixture of "involved owners, CEOs & Coaches) such autonomy is unheard of. In football across Europe virtually all coaches come through the same coaching infrastructure, normally only after decades in such an environment would clubs allow any semblance of autonomy. When you consider (with one exception) the last English manager, brought through the English game, who won the UEFA Champions League was Joe Fagan in 1983-84, maybe they have a point.
It was interesting to note the Burnley Chairman's "informal" comments concerning RDs' intent on being in it for "the long term". Maybe I have had access to different press articles, indicating potentially a 12-15yr involvement in football, but this comes as no surprise. I believe as a successful businessman RD has already established his commercial legacy. For those obsessed with CAFC owners profiting from the club - kindly point me in the direction of anyone, that to date, has done so.
As indicated with his dalliance in Belgian politics he has a wish to build a social legacy and appears intrigued by the influence of football in the community. What does that mean for CAFC? I guess we will find out. He has given every indication he can and is prepared to invest in the right commercial infrastructure, to generate the right platform for the individual clubs to progress and succeed.
None of this means he or we will be successful but I suggest it is a considerably safer place to be than the last 3yrs of financial struggles and ultimately false dawns. Such apparent financial stability linked to a different approach gives supporters a real chance to constructively communicate with the club.
There are many things to think about, and to agree with in Grapevine's post, as usual, however it raised one general question in my mind.
It is a received wisdom that, as Grapevine puts it "The role of the "UK football manager" is virtually unique in global sport." But if it is really that different, then it means that, e.g. Jose Mourinho has moved seamlessly three times from one model to the other without apparently being bothered by the difference in autonomy, and without anybody even commenting on it.
I wonder what this tells us? That some English clubs such as Chelsea have already adopted the 'continental system'? Or that in fact in Europe the Head Coach is still the one who draws up a list of targets, subject to an overall budget, and somebody else is responsible for negotiating the deal? if so (and I am convinced that in most clubs in Europe that is more or less the case), all that means is that you have taken the "'Arry factor" out of transfer dealings, and I'm all for that!
Comments
No not really, fans complaining got the cross bar/north stand issue sorted didnt it ?
I think it's a shame that Ben and I don't get on and I do regret what happened which I felt was a misunderstanding - and I take my share of the blame for that though - not because I am sentimental but I feel he has a good deal to give the Trust and that our cause as fans would be better served if we collaborated.
I am open to any ideas that would help the Museum, this and other historical initiatives are just as important as new ideas and innovations, tradition and history by and large are what makes things special rather than franchise and the generic - I'm sure there is an apt philosophical quote for this. It's wrong to say the Trust is backward looking though, if you look at our work it simply doesn't add up. In short I am a fan of the museum and of course the Trust just like STIG. Perhaps some of us are a bit sensitive about the Trust but that is because we passionately believe in it, and put a heck of a lot of energy into it.
The survey results are interesting and informative, and as a democratic trust I fully understand why you would choose to do surveys and hope you continue to do so in future.
I am also excited about seeing the opened museum in due course. Great idea.
It may be that sacking Chris Powell was either the best or the worst thing that Roland could have done, but for the Board of CAFC to understand what the fanbase makes of their decisions must surely be a good thing?
CAST has just asked those of us who are it's members whether we agree or not with some of the Club's decisions. How can CAST hope to represent our interests if it doesn't know what they are?
Firstly, I suspect Razil would be criticised for being aloof and lacking the common touch if he was relentlessly 'professional', no less criticised for being himself. I'm a member of the Trust, I'd rather be fronted by someone who wore his heart on his sleeve and made mistakes in his presentation than someone who struggled to present a passion. It's that passion I'm most likely to fall behind, but it's a personal view that probably isn't shared by all.
Henry has his own inimitable style but undoubtedly has input that would be invaluable to the Trust if only a way could be found for him to offer it and for it to be received constructively. Personality clashes between people who can build the supporters' representation leads to nothing but division, and with the G21 group seeking their own representation we're at best in danger of looking disorganised, at worst of looking a shambles. Not great when our early meetings with KM will shape our future relationship with the club.
Henry, Razil - I wish you'd find a way to bury the hatchet and focus on the things you agree on rather than the things you don't.
Grrrrr woof!
We started the Trust survey programme some 16 months ago for several reasons - to balance the views of 20 enthusiastic fans meeting in a pub to set up the Trust; to provide guidance as the Trust grew and subsequent legitamacy; and as a simple adaptation of the old style petition - as a way to gather fan email addresses. And of course to listen. The first survey was poor in design but subsequent ones were much improved.
Bark (wags tail)
Perhaps half of the 5,000 Trust fan contacts have come through surveys and very few unsubscribe afterwards. Thank you Prague (more wagging tail and inappropriate climbing up leg) for the acknowledgement as I did put in effort to assist the gathering of 7,500 survey responses over seven surveys. And Weegie (delete! Woof) did indeed assist raising the bar on question design particularly when we set up the Trust feedback survey. It was important to be as precise as possible when listening to fans about Trust direction while reading some of the suggestions made on here throughout 2013. Woof!
There was no Trust 2 years ago and there is now one which is one of the biggest in the Championship.... Grrrrr
Not mine, not Razil's - belongs to the members - simples... Woof (runs off to cause havoc in Leeds on Tuesday)
........ lol
All seem to address communications to, from and about the club and the broadest possible comments on the content thereof. In terms of communication, for the avoidance of doubt, there is an established democratic vehicle for supporters to express their views to the club and its owners. It is entirely up to people whether they choose to use it or not.
I am not sure why those who choose not to, feel they have the right to malign such channel when they seem unable to offer any real alternative. Regular derogatory interaction I suppose must give some indulgent momentary satisfaction but really offers nothing constructive.
The survey conducted after Powells' departure was entirely valid for communication purposes alone and unsurprisingly reflected the high esteem in which he was held. I did not participate and like to think I have a measured view of his departure but recognise many have serious concerns over the reasons for and the manner of his leaving.
All forms of mass communication have flaws and I can pick as many holes in the survey as anybody but it is what it is. The result may have been "bleedin obvious" but it reflects a body of supporter opinion at a point in time which unlike other comment cannot be easily dismissed as random "noises off", and one the club should have to address. In terms of supporter representation I have known marketing people ecstatic with a 2% response, on that basis the numbers are not too bad.
In my humble opinion there is a tremendous opportunity for a vibrant and constructive dialogue with the club and the new owners. Ironically judging by the litany of negative comments it seems the Trust and the Club now both sit in exactly the same space.
There are many supporters who have expressed genuine concerns over "losing" their club. Rather than endlessly dump such angst on any and every message board or blog people happen to frequent, why not constructively empower the established channels to communicate what exactly that means to the people who can actually respond to such concerns.
For all of the "turmoil" surrounding our current circumstances someone has stepped in to fund the clubs continued trading, assume responsibility for historic debts and seeks to establish the "business" on a sound financial footing. All of which may be of absolutely no interest to you but which even with the briefest of consideration will surely register as seriously impacting the quality of football you see.
His vision for establishing such sound financial footing however involves an innovative and creative approach which may or may not impact the very nature of the club.
Therein lies the opportunity to contribute and shape the clubs' future. I have seen much speculation concerning feeder and club network business models. People do not understand them, some people do not want to understand them while others question their value. All based on absolutely no experience of either, which is why it is just speculation - there is no existing comparable business model.
RD has a vision and a series of concepts to deliver the operating value he seeks. What it means in terms of precise deliverables and consequences is yet to be defined. I suggest nothing is cast in stone. It is a new approach and to a degree a voyage of discovery. It will present its challenges, its successes and its failures. Every new approach does.
I spent the last decade of my career building new products many of which 80% of the rest of the business deemed unnecessary, unprofitable or doomed to fail. Nearly all, when properly funded, delivered value. Naysayers have their value but cannot inhibit your ability to meet the needs of a changing market. In case you had not noticed the world of professional football today is scarcely recognisable from 20-30yrs ago.
We simply cannot keep ignoring we have followed the traditional model during a decade of disappointment. To keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result is one definition of commercial insanity.
If there is to be a new future then I suggest there is an opportunity to establish some key principles in moulding how the network and feeder system might best work for us all. RD & KM have expressed a willingness to talk.
It is not about side swipes at all & sundry, simply churning all those things you do not want, but taking the time and trouble to communicate to a group of people interested in taking your views to the club and owner.
Telling people what you do not want achieves nothing because it gives NOTHING for them to achieve. Telling people what you do want, what you want them to achieve, sets them targets and creates a dialogue as to how and when such targets might be achieved.
We are going to have an open mind. The modern game is a much more transitory beast - 25% of our last 200 signings were on loan - 25% originated from overseas. Such trends are likely to increase. The role of the Head Coach is likely to be evermore prevalent. The role of the "UK football manager" is virtually unique in global sport.
In US sport across the NFL (General Managers & Head Coaches), MLB & NHL (Front Offices and Head Coaches, and MBA (mixture of "involved owners, CEOs & Coaches) such autonomy is unheard of. In football across Europe virtually all coaches come through the same coaching infrastructure, normally only after decades in such an environment would clubs allow any semblance of autonomy. When you consider (with one exception) the last English manager, brought through the English game, who won the UEFA Champions League was Joe Fagan in 1983-84, maybe they have a point.
It was interesting to note the Burnley Chairman's "informal" comments concerning RDs' intent on being in it for "the long term". Maybe I have had access to different press articles, indicating potentially a 12-15yr involvement in football, but this comes as no surprise. I believe as a successful businessman RD has already established his commercial legacy. For those obsessed with CAFC owners profiting from the club - kindly point me in the direction of anyone, that to date, has done so.
As indicated with his dalliance in Belgian politics he has a wish to build a social legacy and appears intrigued by the influence of football in the community. What does that mean for CAFC? I guess we will find out. He has given every indication he can and is prepared to invest in the right commercial infrastructure, to generate the right platform for the individual clubs to progress and succeed.
None of this means he or we will be successful but I suggest it is a considerably safer place to be than the last 3yrs of financial struggles and ultimately false dawns. Such apparent financial stability linked to a different approach gives supporters a real chance to constructively communicate with the club.
I earnestly hope people take it.
It is a received wisdom that, as Grapevine puts it "The role of the "UK football manager" is virtually unique in global sport." But if it is really that different, then it means that, e.g. Jose Mourinho has moved seamlessly three times from one model to the other without apparently being bothered by the difference in autonomy, and without anybody even commenting on it.
I wonder what this tells us? That some English clubs such as Chelsea have already adopted the 'continental system'? Or that in fact in Europe the Head Coach is still the one who draws up a list of targets, subject to an overall budget, and somebody else is responsible for negotiating the deal? if so (and I am convinced that in most clubs in Europe that is more or less the case), all that means is that you have taken the "'Arry factor" out of transfer dealings, and I'm all for that!