What do you want me to apologise to you for? For pointing out that you were well out of order when speaking about an organisation you represent taking over another, independent organisation? For daring to criticise the Trust? For you speaking without thinking first?
I see that "Absorb" has now become "Stronger united as one". You haven't explained how or why VG would need you and the Trust to be "stronger". They have a legal status, more members, more money, a bigger and better reputation and a much longer and more impressive track record.
Feel free to explain. But you still owe VG an apology IMO for the assumption that the Trust can or should "absorb" them.
Glad to hear it's not Trust policy. That's a great relief. But what you don't seem to have grasped is that as a Trust board member you can't just comment off the cuff on matters related to the Trust and its relationships with other organisations in the same way you could if you weren't a board member.
If I say I think Welling United should "absorb" Millwall FC then that is just my opinion as I have no stake in either. But If am on the board of Welling Utd then that remark has far greater implications and would rightly draw criticism from the bigger (just), older, more established football club.
How about the TRUST act on my behalf as a SUPPORTER and ask the wonderful VG as to whether my number is still in the draw as I haven't won a thing, not a toffee. Perhaps the TRUST could also ask whether membership cards could be re-issued to all members (annual and monthly subscribers) on an annual (?) basis to help reassure me I haven't gone off radar!
Perhaps this simple request is something the TRUST could do easily? Small steps, walking before running and all that?
A trust board member floats the idea of "absorbing" a much bigger, much more successful and far longer running organisation and the response from another Trust board member is to pretend that it is OK as the two organisations have similar "genders" (sic) and then launch a personal attack on me.
No doubt the rest of the groupthinkers will be wading in over the course of the next few days.
But nowhere do you answer the questions of why a Trust board member would even consider "absorbing " (Trust language for takeover and claim all the credit) another organisation.
Yet again the Trust board shows that it speaks before it thinks and that it is totally unable to deal with or listen to the slightest bit of criticism.
If it could the first response would have been "Sorry, absorb was a silly word to use, apologies to Valley Gold, we have no plans to takeover Valley Gold or any other supporters organisation".
That even the thought of such a clarification didn't even figure in your attack shows just how the Trust board thinks and how far off course it is.
But your criticism is aimed at me, this is nothing to do with CASTRUST.
You could put it the other way around Valley Gold absorbing the TRUST.
So when a Trust board member floats the idea of the Trust taking over another organisation that is nothing to do with the Trust. How do you work that out? Really, just how do you not see that it IS to do with the Trust as you, and no one else, raised the issue of the Trust and you are on the Trust board.
"You could put it the other way around Valley Gold absorbing the Trust"
But you didn't, you raised the issue of the Trust absorbing VG, not merging, not working together, not learning from their vastly greater experience but you "absorbing" them.
And still no apology to VG.
An apology for what exactly? The audacity for you even ask me is beyond belief.
As Barnie has already stated, this is not in the Trust Policy.
I personally think that The Trust and Valley Gold would be stronger united as one. My opinions are not always reflected by the Trust, but of course that goes both ways. Now how about you apologise to me?
I'm quite surprised that this has been 'suggested' by a Trust board member.
Valley Gold should remain totally separate ...at this stage I see no logic to 'combine' the two.
As stated in other threads, I was very disappointed with the actions / inactions of the Trust when the inappropriate G21 idea was mooted. I'm unsure where all of this is going to be honest.
Funnily enough I spoke to one of the Valley Gold Trustees today (you can guess why they rang me) and I asked them about the numbers being in the draw.
They said that they audit all the numbers to make sure they are in the draw on a regular basis but said that they would clarify how often and how that happens and let us all know.
I didn't ask about membership cards but a good point. Maybe there could be a list of members or at least active numbers (to protect privacy) on the VG website to check against.
What do you want me to apologise to you for? For pointing out that you were well out of order when speaking about an organisation you represent taking over another, independent organisation? For daring to criticise the Trust? For you speaking without thinking first?
I see that "Absorb" has now become "Stronger united as one". You haven't explained how or why VG would need you and the Trust to be "stronger". They have a legal status, more members, more money, a bigger and better reputation and a much longer and more impressive track record.
Feel free to explain. But you still owe VG an apology IMO for the assumption that the Trust can or should "absorb" them.
Glad to hear it's not Trust policy. That's a great relief. But what you don't seem to have grasped is that as a Trust board member you can't just comment off the cuff on matters related to the Trust and its relationships with other organisations in the same way you could if you weren't a board member.
If I say I think Welling United should "absorb" Millwall FC then that is just my opinion as I have no stake in either. But If am on the board of Welling Utd then that remark has far greater implications and would rightly draw criticism from the bigger (just), older, more established football club.
The only person I have seem to upset is you, no one from Valley Gold has got in touch with me directly or complained on this thread. I am not having an argument on an internet forum with you about it, its sad Ben.
I am more than happy to have a conversation with you face to face, as a fan NOT a member of the Trust Board!
And Stonemuse has also expressed his surprise at your comments so your attempt to ignore the justified criticism because it is coming from me just doesn't stand.
The thing is you ARE having an argument on an internet forum with me about it. You made the comment on the Internet and you've carried on the argument on the internet. Now, all of a sudden "it's sad".
You know who I am and where I drink, feel free to come and have a conversation but you are and you remain a member of the Trust Board.
You can't pick and choose to shed that role as and when it suits you or in this case when you say something you shouldn't have but won't just put you hands up and say sorry to VG.
Is it possible to leave the point scoring and sniping out of it?
Badger asked above why would the Trust want to absorb Valley Gold and that was my instinctive response to the post too. Why would you change something that has worked well ?
However that said perhaps we can allow Popicon to answer the question and go from there rather than jump straight down his throat before he's had the opportunity to explain and expand on his thinking.
Just a thought given that this is meant to be a discussion forum!
Badger asked above why would the Trust want to absorb Valley Gold and that was my instinctive response to the post too. Why would you change something that has worked well ?
However that said perhaps we can allow Popicon to answer the question and go from there rather than jump straight down his throat before he's had the opportunity to explain and expand on his thinking.
Just a thought given that this is meant to be a discussion forum!
To be fair to Henry Irving he has a valid point, even if a bit dramatic.
Trust Board members cannot say things of consequence on here & try to disassociate them from the Trust.
As Henry said, what if the Crystal Palace chairman asked on here whether Palace should absorb Charlton & then say it was just a personal question, unrelated to his role as the Palace Chairman ?
I would have thought the question (I assume it hasn't) should have first been directed at the organisers of Valley Gold. If both parties agree a merger would be mutually beneficial and there would be no change in the distribution of monies raised by both parties then it might make sense.
Over time the landscape of fan groups and services evolves and changes. Since the Trust was formed we have seen the emergence of Eltham Addicks and the museum together with the relaunch of Voice of the Valley.
On the simple arithmetic one should consider that probably 75% of Trust members are in Valley Gold and that 75% of Valley Gold members are either Trust members or subscribers. The overlap in real fans is quite significant as well as the mission/vision. Surely it is these people who should decide where things go and not some chance discussion on Charlton Life.
What amazes me is how some posters escalate so quickly from discussion to all out allegations and fight...Like one is going to win an argument with a keyboard warrior slap?!
The situation with fan groups is perhaps more complex at Charlton than elsewhere and so requires respect and precision especially from those involved in one or more groups. Fans forget their association with a group sometimes when posting and I think all would do well to remind themselves that they communicate both views and values in what they type.
PS I think the Trust and museum might do well to collaborate on some branded popcorn?
The Trusts policy to fans groups is and always has been how can we help, and many of them have returned that sentiment in good measure. Also if you care to ask VG in the form of Wendy she will tell you that their membership has increased and bucked economic trends, something she is convinced is a result of collaboration with CAS Trust - the only thing new they've been doing.
An excellent example of collaboration between CAFC groups to me and just how it should be.
There is no policy to absorb any group, there are obvious symetrys between the two but my personal view is that VG is better as an a political group.
Whether its structures and rules fit the present or future is something i know they and indeed some vg members who have written to us have questioned but that is a matter for them and their members.
As regards Board members asking hypothetical questions, i would say that it has been made very clear time and again who our official spokesperson and neither that person or the Chair (in this case both happen to be me) has mentioned this, and in fact I have now stated its not policy implied or otherwise.
Would people rather have free thinking innovators with ideas in the Trust or group thinking robots? You can't have it both ways.
. If I had any idea what is happening, and I had some money, I would re-new. Just as I gave my "Lady" to the fella's outside the covered end last Tuesday.
Oh and just a small point, and correct me if I'm wrong but VG is not entirely separate from the Football club, its constitution obliges them to have two reps from CAFC on the 5 man board, the other two are supposed to be reps from (the now defunct) CASC while the Chair is independent.
I believe CAFC also has a power of veto on certain decisions too and run the finances, not that any of this is in my view is a reason not to support or join it. It is a separate company however with charitable status which allows it to run its lottery. Effectively a lottery for the club I believe.
However there is a user called 'castrust' on Charlton Life. I have always assumed that "official" Trust announcements on Charlton Life are made via that user name thus enabling razil and others to engage in debate in their personal capacities.
I think it very unreasonable that Trust Board members should be "hung" on here for expressing an opinion in a personal capacity.
However there is a user called 'castrust' on Charlton Life. I have always assumed that "official" Trust announcements on Charlton Life are made via that user name thus enabling razil and others to engage in debate in their personal capacities.
I think it very unreasonable that Trust Board members should be "hung" on here for expressing an opinion in a personal capacity.
But, if you are on the "top table" so to speak, and people IF they know you as a CAST committee member, then before you post anything, surely, for the hard of thinking it may be better saying something like: " In MY opinion...." or "I think that...."
Anyway, thats my 2d worth (one for all you kids out there.....)
Comments
I see that "Absorb" has now become "Stronger united as one". You haven't explained how or why VG would need you and the Trust to be "stronger". They have a legal status, more members, more money, a bigger and better reputation and a much longer and more impressive track record.
Feel free to explain. But you still owe VG an apology IMO for the assumption that the Trust can or should "absorb" them.
Glad to hear it's not Trust policy. That's a great relief. But what you don't seem to have grasped is that as a Trust board member you can't just comment off the cuff on matters related to the Trust and its relationships with other organisations in the same way you could if you weren't a board member.
If I say I think Welling United should "absorb" Millwall FC then that is just my opinion as I have no stake in either. But If am on the board of Welling Utd then that remark has far greater implications and would rightly draw criticism from the bigger (just), older, more established football club.
Perhaps this simple request is something the TRUST could do easily? Small steps, walking before running and all that?
Valley Gold should remain totally separate ...at this stage I see no logic to 'combine' the two.
As stated in other threads, I was very disappointed with the actions / inactions of the Trust when the inappropriate G21 idea was mooted. I'm unsure where all of this is going to be honest.
They said that they audit all the numbers to make sure they are in the draw on a regular basis but said that they would clarify how often and how that happens and let us all know.
I didn't ask about membership cards but a good point. Maybe there could be a list of members or at least active numbers (to protect privacy) on the VG website to check against.
I am not having an argument on an internet forum with you about it, its sad Ben.
I am more than happy to have a conversation with you face to face, as a fan NOT a member of the Trust Board!
A) Guaranteed away tickets, plus value the academy
And Stonemuse has also expressed his surprise at your comments so your attempt to ignore the justified criticism because it is coming from me just doesn't stand.
The thing is you ARE having an argument on an internet forum with me about it. You made the comment on the Internet and you've carried on the argument on the internet. Now, all of a sudden "it's sad".
You know who I am and where I drink, feel free to come and have a conversation but you are and you remain a member of the Trust Board.
You can't pick and choose to shed that role as and when it suits you or in this case when you say something you shouldn't have but won't just put you hands up and say sorry to VG.
Badger asked above why would the Trust want to absorb Valley Gold and that was my instinctive response to the post too. Why would you change something that has worked well ?
However that said perhaps we can allow Popicon to answer the question and go from there rather than jump straight down his throat before he's had the opportunity to explain and expand on his thinking.
Just a thought given that this is meant to be a discussion forum!
You've had plenty of opportunities to say why you think CAST taking over VG would be a good idea but haven't given a single reason.
Not a single benefit, not a single justification.
So over to you. Make a case for CAST absorbing VG.
Trust Board members cannot say things of consequence on here & try to disassociate them from the Trust.
As Henry said, what if the Crystal Palace chairman asked on here whether Palace should absorb Charlton & then say it was just a personal question, unrelated to his role as the Palace Chairman ?
On the simple arithmetic one should consider that probably 75% of Trust members are in Valley Gold and that 75% of Valley Gold members are either Trust members or subscribers. The overlap in real fans is quite significant as well as the mission/vision. Surely it is these people who should decide where things go and not some chance discussion on Charlton Life.
What amazes me is how some posters escalate so quickly from discussion to all out allegations and fight...Like one is going to win an argument with a keyboard warrior slap?!
The situation with fan groups is perhaps more complex at Charlton than elsewhere and so requires respect and precision especially from those involved in one or more groups. Fans forget their association with a group sometimes when posting and I think all would do well to remind themselves that they communicate both views and values in what they type.
PS I think the Trust and museum might do well to collaborate on some branded popcorn?
An excellent example of collaboration between CAFC groups to me and just how it should be.
There is no policy to absorb any group, there are obvious symetrys between the two but my personal view is that VG is better as an a political group.
Whether its structures and rules fit the present or future is something i know they and indeed some vg members who have written to us have questioned but that is a matter for them and their members.
As regards Board members asking hypothetical questions, i would say that it has been made very clear time and again who our official spokesperson and neither that person or the Chair (in this case both happen to be me) has mentioned this, and in fact I have now stated its not policy implied or otherwise.
Would people rather have free thinking innovators with ideas in the Trust or group thinking robots? You can't have it both ways.
R
Just as I gave my "Lady" to the fella's outside the covered end last Tuesday.
I believe CAFC also has a power of veto on certain decisions too and run the finances, not that any of this is in my view is a reason not to support or join it. It is a separate company however with charitable status which allows it to run its lottery. Effectively a lottery for the club I believe.
Here's an idea.......
Because I'm Charlton.
However there is a user called 'castrust' on Charlton Life. I have always assumed that "official" Trust announcements on Charlton Life are made via that user name thus enabling razil and others to engage in debate in their personal capacities.
I think it very unreasonable that Trust Board members should be "hung" on here for expressing an opinion in a personal capacity.
Let's just start again with it.
What would be the benefit to VG being 'absorbed' by the CAS Trust?
or "I think that...."
Anyway, thats my 2d worth (one for all you kids out there.....)
This is more worrying
If anyone asked me, I'd vote against the idea, at this stage. But I haven't had a chance to find out what the arguments for it are.
Why should you care about a faraway country of which you know little? :-)