Its a public meeting, not sure the number of trust members attending matters. Some who join the Trust actually live some distance and its a way of them offering support from afar.
It will be very easy to lose the aim of the meeting though Ba with emotive and emotional speaking from the crowd, I don't for one minute think that those leading it will not have the view that you mention
As for the numbers I do think it's important and needs to be considered before any action plan is drafted, speak of media and approaching the club should not be done until the numbers are up
I Think Razil is closer in what he perceives as a true number that's where I see the figures and where I think they should be scoped from and if you only get 160 from that number is feel disappointed and encouraged that you need to spread more facts before any action
Can we just let see what happens at the meeting first of all, before presuming what will happen, how many people turn up. This thread is going around in circles. Wait and see.
Your misunderstanding raz I am using your membership number as a gauge, not how many trust members attend
There's no point thinking we have 12k of supporters and only 160 turned up as that % would be a difficult message to prove support
People don't need to know if they are members of the trust or not if your selling the message to the media but if its known how many your membership figures are, 200-300 attendance will be an easier sell of the story
You're right, NLA, I don't understand your point. Roly is making a pig's ear of running Charlton, and the future looks bleak unless he starts making better footballing decisions. So what if the meeting only attracts 150? They will be far outweighed by those who will simply decide not to turn up at the Valley on matchday, like yourself. AS Alan Sugar says, it's all about the product. My feeling is that Roly will just make more cuts rather than listen to the fans, either at the meeting, or the stay-aways. But you can only try.
Good post @Bournemouth Addick, and as @shirty5, says, the thread is going round in circles. At the moment a few people are working their butts off just trying to secure a suitable venue. I believe it is close, but has been hard work. The the thing to do, is to fill the bloody thing. Whether the capacity is 160 or 360. No other number from the meeting matters and I'm really struggling to get NLA's point beyond that.
The first meeting of the Valley Party got 9 people. Nine. None of the nine on the night dared to believe that we would get 14,838 votes four months later, but that is what we did.
But I am not going to games this season due to non football issues So that's irrelevant
As a supporter of the trust and what it stands for I believe this meeting is exactly what it should be used for
But if the numbers don't reflect that the higher % amount of supporters are in agreement with those at the meeting
Then the trust need to be careful of being the vehicle that takes it forward because it will potentially alienate it's higher % of members or supporters
That's why numbers in attendance are important and need to be considered not just for the purpose of room size
But I am not going to games this season due to non football issues So that's irrelevant
As a supporter of the trust and what it stands for I believe this meeting is exactly what it should be used for
But if the numbers don't reflect that the higher % amount of supporters are in agreement with those at the meeting
Then the trust need to be careful of being the vehicle that takes it forward because it will potentially alienate it's higher % of members or supporters
That's why numbers in attendance are important and need to be considered not just for the purpose of room size
Ok, to try and stop this going round in circle, what would you suggest is the correct way forwards NLA ?
If I saw the attendance was around 150-200 That you hold the meeting keep control on the input from the floor put facts on the table that supports the fears
And make everyone in the room aware that the next stage is to spread the facts a real campaign of information delivery
Not protests, media pressure and anger
If it's 250- 350 I'd do the same but start to seriously join up with the liege fans and once that was done push for media support
350-500
Go for it big style, keep spreading the word but be more aggressive in the attitude and wording
I dont agree at all NLA (if I understand you right) sounds like setting expectations too much, this is a public meeting facilitated by the Trust not some sort of three line whip for our members.
However the bottom line is the more fans are there the bigger the impact, so maximising attendance is a goal
I would then hope next stages involve a show of the level of support, boots on the ground and or pens on a fan poll (heaven forbid), if that ends up being the direction it goes.
Good post @Bournemouth Addick, and as @shirty5, says, the thread is going round in circles. At the moment a few people are working their butts off just trying to secure a suitable venue. I believe it is close, but has been hard work. The the thing to do, is to fill the bloody thing. Whether the capacity is 160 or 360. No other number from the meeting matters and I'm really struggling to get NLA's point beyond that.
The first meeting of the Valley Party got 9 people. Nine. None of the nine on the night dared to believe that we would get 14,838 votes four months later, but that is what we did.
Because the trust is like a union, and if a union doesn't have the support of its members then it shouldn't push on with policy and requests that people don't want
The one thing I don't want to happen from this is that just because those leading the trust may think they are right in their concerns, that they do not unintentionally damage the one thing that all agree is worth while as a safety net and remove support or alienate it's higher % of supporters
But I reckon that people at the meeting will expect it to be like the start of a revolution, and either be disappointed if it's not and walk away feeling they ain't going to do anything about it
Time will tell, I just hope that as the leader of the trust you don't hide your own feelings and feel restricted, as a fan you have your own right to opinion but as leader of the trust you represent the whole spectrum
I get that mate, but you are facilitating it and assisting in arranging it, therefore it is something you are leading and are going to be seen as hosting
It's not restricted to members that's why it's an open meeting
It's not something that's been arranged and you invited too
the 'football for a fiver' game will be a massive telling on what the fans and the public think of what's happening , whether we sell out or not is anyone's guess!
Don't think we'll sell out but there will be a massive "Chrissy Powells red and White army!" Specially if we don't pick up our results
You know, when we began the Valley Party there were people who said it was a disastrous decision because we would get a derisory vote and all we would do is demonstrate that there was very little feeling among local people for the club.
I have no idea, NLA, why someone who has decided for no doubt very good reasons not to attend matches, would spend so much time and energy going on about something people who are attending are doing.
I think you are completely misguided in imagining that there isn't a large number of people who are very concerned about RD's running of the club, from former directors (VIP and other), ex-staff, current staff, supporters' trust, regular away travellers, other season-ticket holders, occasional supporters to folk down the pub. If I'm wrong, so what, nothing of substance will happen because there will be no support for it. But why not wait and see?
Because it's a one season abstention ab and I am in favor of the trust being a vehicle for the majority not the minority and it's important that remains the case
Nothing would please me more than there be masses at the meeting and that alone make people like myself maybe question our own thoughts on what's happening
But if its the other way around then I'd expect to those within the trust leadership continue their own support for any concerns but not put the trust name alongside it
Ultimately, however, even the trust can't have a survey about everything. It has an elected leadership which is accountable and can be removed. People can also resign their membership if they are unhappy. But unless those in post are allowed to lead the whole thing is pointless.
..... I think we all agree that RD does not appear to be running the club in the way we as CAFC expect or want. The appointment of Luzon is a prime example, he has been appointed to suit RDs circumstances not the best interests of Charlton.....
I appreciate that I appear to be in a very small minority and that the non-communicative stance taken by the Club is both unhelpful and stupid but, amongst all the heat generated and vitriole vented in multiple threads on this forum, particularly since Luzon's appointment, I have seen not a shred of hard evidence that "suiting RDs circumstances" and the best interests of Charlton (at least in terms of long-term success on the pitch) are mutually incompatible or that Luzon's appointment was driven by anything other than RD's sincere view (whether astute or misguided, we need more than 2 games to determine) of the best appointment for preserving CAFC's league status. I support the planned meeting but I strongly urge you not to take steps which seek to damage the finances of the Club. If you want a change of ownership, an ST boycott or the like will do little to disrupt RD's plans or hurt his wallet but could easily serve to deter prospective buyers.
Whatever it takes to get new owners
Just be careful what you wish for said the Portsmouth supporter.
I'm neither for or against a change of ownership, but there is this view that there will be a better owner round the corner but lets remember:-
1. Finding new owners is not easy, there is not a queue of potential buyers around the corner - don't forget the last round included Sainsbury guy and Russian alleged mobsters.
2. Duchatalet as we know has no affinity for the club or fans and will sell to the highest bidder and will not even give lipservice as Murray did to owners with the best interests of the club.
3. Floyd Road - nice piece of real estate.
4. The trust is unlikely to be able to buy a majority share in the club so it is unlikely to come back to the fans.
But I reckon that people at the meeting will expect it to be like the start of a revolution, and either be disappointed if it's not and walk away feeling they ain't going to do anything about it
Time will tell, I just hope that as the leader of the trust you don't hide your own feelings and feel restricted, as a fan you have your own right to opinion but as leader of the trust you represent the whole spectrum
Then they should also read the statement that the Trust release calling the meeting, that explains exactly what it is.
..... I think we all agree that RD does not appear to be running the club in the way we as CAFC expect or want. The appointment of Luzon is a prime example, he has been appointed to suit RDs circumstances not the best interests of Charlton.....
I appreciate that I appear to be in a very small minority and that the non-communicative stance taken by the Club is both unhelpful and stupid but, amongst all the heat generated and vitriole vented in multiple threads on this forum, particularly since Luzon's appointment, I have seen not a shred of hard evidence that "suiting RDs circumstances" and the best interests of Charlton (at least in terms of long-term success on the pitch) are mutually incompatible or that Luzon's appointment was driven by anything other than RD's sincere view (whether astute or misguided, we need more than 2 games to determine) of the best appointment for preserving CAFC's league status. I support the planned meeting but I strongly urge you not to take steps which seek to damage the finances of the Club. If you want a change of ownership, an ST boycott or the like will do little to disrupt RD's plans or hurt his wallet but could easily serve to deter prospective buyers.
Whatever it takes to get new owners
Just be careful what you wish for said the Portsmouth supporter.
I'm neither for or against a change of ownership, but there is this view that there will be a better owner round the corner but lets remember:-
1. Finding new owners is not easy, there is not a queue of potential buyers around the corner - don't forget the last round included Sainsbury guy and Russian alleged mobsters.
2. Duchatalet as we know has no affinity for the club or fans and will sell to the highest bidder and will not even give lipservice as Murray did to owners with the best interests of the club.
3. Floyd Road - nice piece of real estate.
4. The trust is unlikely to be able to buy a majority share in the club so it is unlikely to come back to the fans.
I think you are too pessimistic on 1) and given the success of 2) so far I think we have as good a chance with someone selling who isn't a) desperate for cash and b) has a reputation to protect as we did in either of the last two sales. There are lots of chancers out there and always have been, but they still have to show proof of funds, satisfy the existing creditors or pay off their debt too, satisfy the bank (although less of an issue as the bank debt falls) and, don't laugh, satisfy the football authorities.
But I reckon that people at the meeting will expect it to be like the start of a revolution, and either be disappointed if it's not and walk away feeling they ain't going to do anything about it
Time will tell, I just hope that as the leader of the trust you don't hide your own feelings and feel restricted, as a fan you have your own right to opinion but as leader of the trust you represent the whole spectrum
Then they should also read the statement that the Trust release calling the meeting, that explains exactly what it is.
The statement will be irrelevant imo.
Put 100-200 in a meeting room (a high percentage of whom will be "spoiling for a rumble") and it will only take a few chucking anti RD rhetoric around for it to descend into a farce.
I can assure you a high percentage attending will be expecting a revolution and Standard Ultras style direct action.
However, admirable the Trust's intentions are in relation to facilitating this meeting they won't be able to police the inevitable "hardliners" who'll turn up.
But I reckon that people at the meeting will expect it to be like the start of a revolution, and either be disappointed if it's not and walk away feeling they ain't going to do anything about it
Time will tell, I just hope that as the leader of the trust you don't hide your own feelings and feel restricted, as a fan you have your own right to opinion but as leader of the trust you represent the whole spectrum
Then they should also read the statement that the Trust release calling the meeting, that explains exactly what it is.
The statement will be irrelevant imo.
Put 100-200 in a meeting room (a high percentage of whom will be "spoiling for a rumble") and it will only take a few chucking anti RD rhetoric around for it to descend into a farce.
I can assure you a high percentage attending will be expecting a revolution and Standard Ultras style direct action.
However, admirable the Trust's intentions are in relation to facilitating this meeting they won't be able to police the inevitable "hardliners" who'll turn up.
Comments
As for the numbers I do think it's important and needs to be considered before any action plan is drafted, speak of media and approaching the club should not be done until the numbers are up
I Think Razil is closer in what he perceives as a true number that's where I see the figures and where I think they should be scoped from and if you only get 160 from that number is feel disappointed and encouraged that you need to spread more facts before any action
There's no point thinking we have 12k of supporters and only 160 turned up as that % would be a difficult message to prove support
People don't need to know if they are members of the trust or not if your selling the message to the media but if its known how many your membership figures are, 200-300 attendance will be an easier sell of the story
The first meeting of the Valley Party got 9 people. Nine. None of the nine on the night dared to believe that we would get 14,838 votes four months later, but that is what we did.
As a supporter of the trust and what it stands for I believe this meeting is exactly what it should be used for
But if the numbers don't reflect that the higher % amount of supporters are in agreement with those at the meeting
Then the trust need to be careful of being the vehicle that takes it forward because it will potentially alienate it's higher % of members or supporters
That's why numbers in attendance are important and need to be considered not just for the purpose of room size
And make everyone in the room aware that the next stage is to spread the facts a real campaign of information delivery
Not protests, media pressure and anger
If it's 250- 350 I'd do the same but start to seriously join up with the liege fans and once that was done push for media support
350-500
Go for it big style, keep spreading the word but be more aggressive in the attitude and wording
However the bottom line is the more fans are there the bigger the impact, so maximising attendance is a goal
I would then hope next stages involve a show of the level of support, boots on the ground and or pens on a fan poll (heaven forbid), if that ends up being the direction it goes.
Because the trust is like a union, and if a union doesn't have the support of its members then it shouldn't push on with policy and requests that people don't want
The one thing I don't want to happen from this is that just because those leading the trust may think they are right in their concerns, that they do not unintentionally damage the one thing that all agree is worth while as a safety net and remove support or alienate it's higher % of supporters
But I reckon that people at the meeting will expect it to be like the start of a revolution, and either be disappointed if it's not and walk away feeling they ain't going to do anything about it
Time will tell, I just hope that as the leader of the trust you don't hide your own feelings and feel restricted, as a fan you have your own right to opinion but as leader of the trust you represent the whole spectrum
It's not restricted to members that's why it's an open meeting
It's not something that's been arranged and you invited too
I have no idea, NLA, why someone who has decided for no doubt very good reasons not to attend matches, would spend so much time and energy going on about something people who are attending are doing.
I think you are completely misguided in imagining that there isn't a large number of people who are very concerned about RD's running of the club, from former directors (VIP and other), ex-staff, current staff, supporters' trust, regular away travellers, other season-ticket holders, occasional supporters to folk down the pub. If I'm wrong, so what, nothing of substance will happen because there will be no support for it. But why not wait and see?
Nothing would please me more than there be masses at the meeting and that alone make people like myself maybe question our own thoughts on what's happening
But if its the other way around then I'd expect to those within the trust leadership continue their own support for any concerns but not put the trust name alongside it
I'm neither for or against a change of ownership, but there is this view that there will be a better owner round the corner but lets remember:-
1. Finding new owners is not easy, there is not a queue of potential buyers around the corner - don't forget the last round included Sainsbury guy and Russian alleged mobsters.
2. Duchatalet as we know has no affinity for the club or fans and will sell to the highest bidder and will not even give lipservice as Murray did to owners with the best interests of the club.
3. Floyd Road - nice piece of real estate.
4. The trust is unlikely to be able to buy a majority share in the club so it is unlikely to come back to the fans.
Put 100-200 in a meeting room (a high percentage of whom will be "spoiling for a rumble") and it will only take a few chucking anti RD rhetoric around for it to descend into a farce.
I can assure you a high percentage attending will be expecting a revolution and Standard Ultras style direct action.
However, admirable the Trust's intentions are in relation to facilitating this meeting they won't be able to police the inevitable "hardliners" who'll turn up.