Left field question but no harm in asking how people feel.
Coming from a Trust board member I think the way it was asked leaves it open to interpretation as a Trust question rather than an individual one.
However, being a Trust board member doesn't preclude you from expressing personal views independent from the Trust opinion (but clarity in that regard would be helpful and wise counsel).
I'm not quite sure what Henry thinks though, can you be a tad clearer birthday boy? ;-)
Another reason not to renew my trust subscription, if this idea absorbing VG ever happens. God forbid
Where did this idea come from though? Has anybody actually said one would absorb the other or is is just a presumption made by someone trying to start a debate.
Another reason not to renew my trust subscription, if this idea absorbing VG ever happens. God forbid
Where did this idea come from though? Has anybody actually said one would absorb the other or is is just a presumption made by someone trying to start a debate.
No, Popicon said he thought it was a good idea and said "The Trust and Valley Gold would be stronger united as one"
Valley Gold deserves all the support it can get from our supporters and worries about possible changes in its future structure or composition could be detrimental. Leave it alone to continue its fantastic work for our Acadamy.
Another reason not to renew my trust subscription, if this idea absorbing VG ever happens. God forbid
Where did this idea come from though? Has anybody actually said one would absorb the other or is is just a presumption made by someone trying to start a debate.
Not even a presumption, just an idea from an individual, speaking as an individual. Whatever Henry may say, the fact is that I as a fellow Board member did not even know the identity of Popicon. If Henry had not mentioned that he is a Trust Board member, no one would have been any the wiser, and we could have just discussed the merits of the idea. FWIW I don't personally see any merit, and it has never been discussed at any Trust Board meeting that I've been in on.
Another reason not to renew my trust subscription, if this idea absorbing VG ever happens. God forbid
Where did this idea come from though? Has anybody actually said one would absorb the other or is is just a presumption made by someone trying to start a debate.
the fact is that I as a fellow Board member did not even know the identity of Popicon. If Henry had not mentioned that he is a Trust Board member, no one would have been any the wiser,
So because you didn't know then no one else could have known? That is a big presumption.
Popicon regularly posts on Trust matters and has identified himself as a Trust Board member on here which is how I know that is a Trust board member.
Another reason not to renew my trust subscription, if this idea absorbing VG ever happens. God forbid
Where did this idea come from though? Has anybody actually said one would absorb the other or is is just a presumption made by someone trying to start a debate.
the fact is that I as a fellow Board member did not even know the identity of Popicon. If Henry had not mentioned that he is a Trust Board member, no one would have been any the wiser,
So because you didn't know then no one else could have known? That is a big presumption.
Popicon regularly posts on Trust matters and has identified himself as a Trust Board member on here which is how I know that is a Trust board member.
You are right. "No one " is a big presumption. I'll settle for 90% of those who read it, with 70% not giving a toss anyway.
Another reason not to renew my trust subscription, if this idea absorbing VG ever happens. God forbid
Where did this idea come from though? Has anybody actually said one would absorb the other or is is just a presumption made by someone trying to start a debate.
the fact is that I as a fellow Board member did not even know the identity of Popicon. If Henry had not mentioned that he is a Trust Board member, no one would have been any the wiser,
So because you didn't know then no one else could have known? That is a big presumption.
Popicon regularly posts on Trust matters and has identified himself as a Trust Board member on here which is how I know that is a Trust board member.
You are right. "No one " is a big presumption. I'll settle for 90% of those who read it, with 70% not giving a toss anyway.
Another made up stat from a Trust Board member.
Or was that another made up stat from an individual?
So hard to tell when you all turn you badges on and off at will.
Its a shame HI that your sometimes confrontational / aggressive posting style dilutes the normally fair and reasonable point behind it.
The use of the word 'absorbed' was ill-advised, and a potentially crass / arrogant suggestion. But it just needed a gentle toe-poke to provoke a debate, not a run-up and a big boot with a Doc Martin.
There are loads of things the CAS Trust can be criticised for as well as praised, but when you go in so strong you give the impression to others that its a personal issue and kind of lose the wider credibility of your point.
No, I'm very pro the concept of a Supporters Trust.
I helped behind the scenes with the set up (as publically acknowledged by Razil on here). I was invited to join the board by Razil and Seriously Red on literally dozens of occasions but as I has always said I did not want to an official of the Trust I declined every time.
Bromley Addicks also donated money to CAST to help get it off the ground. In case Prague Addick didn't know I'm the secretary of Bromley Addicks. Bromley Addicks also moved our 20th Anniversary of the Back to the Valley event to allow the Trust to hold it's launch on 5 December.
I am critical of the way it has been operated and lead and in particular the Trust's desire to claim credit for activities in which it has had no part or which were already being carried out by other supporters' Group.
Its a shame HI that your sometimes confrontational / aggressive posting style dilutes the normally fair and reasonable point behind it.
The use of the word 'absorbed' was ill-advised, and a potentially crass / arrogant suggestion. But it just needed a gentle toe-poke to provoke a debate, not a run-up and a big boot with a Doc Martin.
There are loads of things the CAS Trust can be criticised for as well as praised, but when you go in so strong you give the impression to others that its a personal issue and kind of lose the wider credibility of your point.
Fair enough but as you say it was, IMO, yet another in a long line of crass/arrogant actions from CAST. The Trust board are fully aware of what those issues are, such as the claim that they "co-promoted" an event in which they had made no contribution, as they have all been raised with them in private and most have not been raised by me on CL or in other public arenas.
Its a shame HI that your sometimes confrontational / aggressive posting style dilutes the normally fair and reasonable point behind it.
The use of the word 'absorbed' was ill-advised, and a potentially crass / arrogant suggestion. But it just needed a gentle toe-poke to provoke a debate, not a run-up and a big boot with a Doc Martin.
There are loads of things the CAS Trust can be criticised for as well as praised, but when you go in so strong you give the impression to others that its a personal issue and kind of lose the wider credibility of your point.
Fair enough but as you say it was, IMO, yet another in a long line of crass/arrogant actions from CAST. The Trust board are fully aware of what those issues are, such as the claim that they "co-promoted" an event in which they had made no contribution, as they have all been raised with them in private and most have not been raised by me on CL or in other public arenas.
Clearly (and reasonably) yours is a subjective interpretation of events. As a bystander in all this I accept it's your view but reserve judgement on those matters - partly because as AFKA says the good bits of your message are being lost in what seems to be a personal issue with individuals.
As a member of both CASTrust and Valley Gold I personally don't see a place - now at least - for the Supporters Trust to be 'absorbing' Valley Gold.
However, there is already in place a strong working relationship which has been to the benefit of Valley Gold. Wendy issued this statement, headed 'A testament to the Trust', on the Valley Gold website acknowledging this and describing them as a 'business partner'.
So let's discard the word 'absorb' for now, and let's overlook that the thread has somewhat been hijacked. Is there a place for the two entities to work more and more closely together? Absolutely, and personally I would hope that the Trust take the lead in supporters representation in Charlton Club.
It's still early days for the Trust, and I think sometimes enthusiasm to build a common conduit as quickly as possible can be misinterpreted as arrogance. There have surely been some mistakes - I've posted on here before that I felt the headlines used by the Trust to sell the idea of the ACV were errant - but if as you say you are behind the concept then maybe it's time you put your personal issues to one side and brought your own abilities to influence building the Trust presence in a way you feel is more appropriate.
Without wishing to patronise you, I genuinely think you've more to offer than what you've posted on this thread fella.
I am more than happy to answer any questions, and more than happy to admit mistakes, we are all pretty new to running a Trust, and most are new to the Charlton fan network
We suggested a Back to the Valley 21 event to SB in the February after the club missed out celebrating the one we held on our launch- there wouldn't have been any kind of official celebration of 20 years back at the Valley at the Valley if supporter's groups including us and as Ben says Bromley and others hadn't joined together and supported the Trust doing one - it was a great success I felt and happily coincided with our launch. We were adamant it should be at the ground rather than the Oak (we nearly joined in another event organised there by John Rooke?), and after knocking on a lot of doors and experiencing fear and trepidation from Charlton staff, who were worried about their jobs and any association with us, we eventually made some progress.
When it came around to organising bttv21 it we were oddly not invited to the meeting, despite our protestations, however we accepted a compromise and not make a fuss and help promote it on our channels and our badge was attached to the posters flyers etc. And after all it was in the very capable hands of Iain and Jean. I call this co-promoting but apparently Ben doesn't, we've never to my knowledge said any more than that or claimed anything different. The club were happy to use our badge throughout on the flyers although it mysteriously disappeared from those displayed on the night. We were also pleased to help Ashford or East Kent as it may have been by then, and did a similar thing, also in addition designing the flyer for them.
On that point Mr OfOld - if it's the one I'm thinking of my ACV headlines proved justified: The council prevaricated, they also added a caveat (completely at odds with the spirit of the legislation) namely that were ACV to be invoked they would strongly consider the viability of the group that were bidding to raise the money. I had seen a direct email from Mr Roberts to this effect.
At the same time it may have been overly tabloid in style, but in the world of social media and short snappy attention grabbers, this is a very easy trap to fall into.
oh and just for the record FROM A PERSONAL VIEW POINT I as an individual I am against absorbing Valley Gold, or absorbing anything else in fact.
I don't believe it's ever been raised at a Trust meeting either and there are certainly no plans to absorb them or anything else. If you knew how much time it took to run the Trust, having another entity like that would be immense, I think the current arrangement works pretty well.
Ken and I were interested in whether the Trust could provide the financial structure for the Museum but it was never a Trust policy, and only an idea. Indeed the idea scored low in our survey way back on what a Trust might do, in the end I'm pleased how it worked out again for workload reasons. I can see why people might think we want fingers in too many pies, but as Rik says its based on enthusiasm rather than any other reason.
As I think I mentioned there are obvious cross overs in aims etc particularly around the original reason to set up Valley Gold which was to raise funds to bring us back to the Valley.
One of the things I like about the Trust set up is that people who join the Trust by and large get a small amount of tangible benefits other than to support the group and the idea, and help disseminate its message.
Unlike Valley Gold or Supporters Clubs which joining will mean you get a chance to win something or preference for tickets, or access to social and coach travel etc. This makes the symbolic fiver more of a sacrifice in itself although a small one, and so far other than a free badge on renewal we have resisted for exactly that reason. Of course with Valley Gold you may not win anything but you would qualify for ticket preference, and get the warm feeling you are helping the academy with 150k? a year.
PS there are one or two exceptions to the benefits but by and large there aren't that many - the balance of this is a discussion we do sometimes have, similarly to whether we allow advertising on the site. In general we try and make the fivers and donations go as far as possible though.
Raz, my issue was simply the portrayal of the ACV as a panacea to any proposed move away from the Valley - I can't recall actual headlines, I didn't mean it literally but more as 'the headline message'.
I concede that you and other board members accepted that it wasn't that.
I don't recall that being stated on our website as such, but hey ho
Don't want to argue with you Barnie, not least because (i) I'm very supportive of the Trust and its board as you know, (ii) the point of my post was to ask Henry to be more constructive and forbearing in his dealings with the Trust rather than to criticise you, and (iii) we're taking the thread in a completely different direction to its OP.
However given your last statement, please refer to the following links:
This link on the CASTrust website errantly claims the ACV "... will ensure Charlton fans are consulted if the club were ever to be relocated and or the Valley sold" under a headline and introduction referring to the Message to our Supporters and subsequent departure from the Valley.
This thread which includes a picture of the said MtoS with the same implicit message.
You're right, they're attention grabbing headlines and with good intent. But it wasn't an accurate claim for the ACV, notwithstanding it being an admirable achievement, and you accepted that later in the CL thread linked.
Let's not get deflected onto minutiae. I don't expect the Trust to be perfect in only its second year, that was kind of my point, and what it's achieved to date is remarkable. I also want to play my part as a member of it in helping it become even better, and all that means.
Comments
Coming from a Trust board member I think the way it was asked leaves it open to interpretation as a Trust question rather than an individual one.
However, being a Trust board member doesn't preclude you from expressing personal views independent from the Trust opinion (but clarity in that regard would be helpful and wise counsel).
I'm not quite sure what Henry thinks though, can you be a tad clearer birthday boy? ;-)
He hasn't explained why he thinks this though.
Popicon regularly posts on Trust matters and has identified himself as a Trust Board member on here which is how I know that is a Trust board member.
Or was that another made up stat from an individual?
So hard to tell when you all turn you badges on and off at will.
The use of the word 'absorbed' was ill-advised, and a potentially crass / arrogant suggestion. But it just needed a gentle toe-poke to provoke a debate, not a run-up and a big boot with a Doc Martin.
There are loads of things the CAS Trust can be criticised for as well as praised, but when you go in so strong you give the impression to others that its a personal issue and kind of lose the wider credibility of your point.
I helped behind the scenes with the set up (as publically acknowledged by Razil on here). I was invited to join the board by Razil and Seriously Red on literally dozens of occasions but as I has always said I did not want to an official of the Trust I declined every time.
Bromley Addicks also donated money to CAST to help get it off the ground. In case Prague Addick didn't know I'm the secretary of Bromley Addicks. Bromley Addicks also moved our 20th Anniversary of the Back to the Valley event to allow the Trust to hold it's launch on 5 December.
I am critical of the way it has been operated and lead and in particular the Trust's desire to claim credit for activities in which it has had no part or which were already being carried out by other supporters' Group.
(Didn't know this thread was set up to debate the pros and cons of CAST)
As a member of both CASTrust and Valley Gold I personally don't see a place - now at least - for the Supporters Trust to be 'absorbing' Valley Gold.
However, there is already in place a strong working relationship which has been to the benefit of Valley Gold. Wendy issued this statement, headed 'A testament to the Trust', on the Valley Gold website acknowledging this and describing them as a 'business partner'.
So let's discard the word 'absorb' for now, and let's overlook that the thread has somewhat been hijacked. Is there a place for the two entities to work more and more closely together? Absolutely, and personally I would hope that the Trust take the lead in supporters representation in Charlton Club.
It's still early days for the Trust, and I think sometimes enthusiasm to build a common conduit as quickly as possible can be misinterpreted as arrogance. There have surely been some mistakes - I've posted on here before that I felt the headlines used by the Trust to sell the idea of the ACV were errant - but if as you say you are behind the concept then maybe it's time you put your personal issues to one side and brought your own abilities to influence building the Trust presence in a way you feel is more appropriate.
Without wishing to patronise you, I genuinely think you've more to offer than what you've posted on this thread fella.
We suggested a Back to the Valley 21 event to SB in the February after the club missed out celebrating the one we held on our launch- there wouldn't have been any kind of official celebration of 20 years back at the Valley at the Valley if supporter's groups including us and as Ben says Bromley and others hadn't joined together and supported the Trust doing one - it was a great success I felt and happily coincided with our launch. We were adamant it should be at the ground rather than the Oak (we nearly joined in another event organised there by John Rooke?), and after knocking on a lot of doors and experiencing fear and trepidation from Charlton staff, who were worried about their jobs and any association with us, we eventually made some progress.
When it came around to organising bttv21 it we were oddly not invited to the meeting, despite our protestations, however we accepted a compromise and not make a fuss and help promote it on our channels and our badge was attached to the posters flyers etc. And after all it was in the very capable hands of Iain and Jean. I call this co-promoting but apparently Ben doesn't, we've never to my knowledge said any more than that or claimed anything different. The club were happy to use our badge throughout on the flyers although it mysteriously disappeared from those displayed on the night. We were also pleased to help Ashford or East Kent as it may have been by then, and did a similar thing, also in addition designing the flyer for them.
At the same time it may have been overly tabloid in style, but in the world of social media and short snappy attention grabbers, this is a very easy trap to fall into.
I do however welcome the feedback.
I don't believe it's ever been raised at a Trust meeting either and there are certainly no plans to absorb them or anything else. If you knew how much time it took to run the Trust, having another entity like that would be immense, I think the current arrangement works pretty well.
Ken and I were interested in whether the Trust could provide the financial structure for the Museum but it was never a Trust policy, and only an idea. Indeed the idea scored low in our survey way back on what a Trust might do, in the end I'm pleased how it worked out again for workload reasons. I can see why people might think we want fingers in too many pies, but as Rik says its based on enthusiasm rather than any other reason.
As I think I mentioned there are obvious cross overs in aims etc particularly around the original reason to set up Valley Gold which was to raise funds to bring us back to the Valley.
One of the things I like about the Trust set up is that people who join the Trust by and large get a small amount of tangible benefits other than to support the group and the idea, and help disseminate its message.
Unlike Valley Gold or Supporters Clubs which joining will mean you get a chance to win something or preference for tickets, or access to social and coach travel etc. This makes the symbolic fiver more of a sacrifice in itself although a small one, and so far other than a free badge on renewal we have resisted for exactly that reason. Of course with Valley Gold you may not win anything but you would qualify for ticket preference, and get the warm feeling you are helping the academy with 150k? a year.
PS there are one or two exceptions to the benefits but by and large there aren't that many - the balance of this is a discussion we do sometimes have, similarly to whether we allow advertising on the site. In general we try and make the fivers and donations go as far as possible though.
I concede that you and other board members accepted that it wasn't that.
However given your last statement, please refer to the following links:
- This link on the CASTrust website errantly claims the ACV "... will ensure Charlton fans are consulted if the club were ever to be relocated and or the Valley sold" under a headline and introduction referring to the Message to our Supporters and subsequent departure from the Valley.
- This thread which includes a picture of the said MtoS with the same implicit message.
You're right, they're attention grabbing headlines and with good intent. But it wasn't an accurate claim for the ACV, notwithstanding it being an admirable achievement, and you accepted that later in the CL thread linked.Let's not get deflected onto minutiae. I don't expect the Trust to be perfect in only its second year, that was kind of my point, and what it's achieved to date is remarkable. I also want to play my part as a member of it in helping it become even better, and all that means.