Personally Raz I think it should be a Trust meeting* and the Trust should stop being facilitators but leaders, otherwise why should the club meet with fans facilitators?
*Just because the meeting is a Trust meeting does not mean non Trust members can't attend.
Lol, I will now mate I can see what's going to happen at the meeting from the way the posts are going, I hope thoae managing and facilitating the meeting don't fall into.the mistakes that seemingly are being made
Personally Raz I think it should be a Trust meeting* and the Trust should stop being facilitators but leaders, otherwise why should the club meet with fans facilitators?
*Just because the meeting is a Trust meeting does not mean non Trust members can't attend.
We do not presume to speak for more than those who have joined the Trust. The meeting will bring together people who are united by concern about the direction of CAFC, but who currently have very different views about how to respond to it. The question of a season ticket boycott is one visible example. We are not afraid of leadership, but we have to first listen to the viewpoints to determine what common ground there is.
Don't forget, since you were around then, the Valley Party had no "leader" and even the core group was a flexible team which just naturally worked well together towards a common goal. Right now, nobody can be sure that we agree on a common goal. We have a common concern, thats not the same thing.
If it was a "Trust meeting", we'd also have to ensure priority was given to Trust members who wished to attend.
As someone who has been pretty critical of the trust, I have to say this is exactly what I think they should be doing.
However, I also agree with Kap10, above, this should be their meeting, yes, an open meeting but their meeting, we need someone to lead the way, why not the trust.
I also agree with NLA, if only 100-150 people show up it would be pretty embarrassing and, in my opinion, a real step back. Imagine how easy it would be for RD to dismiss anything that came from the meeting. 150 is a tiny % of our fan base,for this to work, numbers are needed, imo, so anyone that can attend, should.
Personally Raz I think it should be a Trust meeting* and the Trust should stop being facilitators but leaders, otherwise why should the club meet with fans facilitators?
*Just because the meeting is a Trust meeting does not mean non Trust members can't attend.
It needs to open and shared with pulling in all different forums and supporters. Trust members need to remember that are are not in charge and are part of the Charlton support. The aim for an owner who provides investment who makes competent football decisions who can bring the club forward. All creative, sharp and entertaining ideas should be welcome. One of the very positive and encouraging things is the involvement of ITTV and Not 606 forums. Without them, what of note will be achieved ? A United support can get things done.
Personally Raz I think it should be a Trust meeting* and the Trust should stop being facilitators but leaders, otherwise why should the club meet with fans facilitators?
*Just because the meeting is a Trust meeting does not mean non Trust members can't attend.
Disagree. Needs to open and shared with pulling in all different forums and supporters. Trust members need to remember that are are not in charge and are part of the Charlton support. The aim for an owner who provides investment who makes competent football decisions who can bring the club forward. All creative, sharp and entertaining ideas should be welcome. One of the very positive and encouraging things is the involvement of ITTV and Not 606 forums. Without them, what of note will be achieved ? A United support can get things done.
My experience on UK style Town Hall meetings is that they are not normally productive unless strongly chaired and have a clear direction . Otherwise it is a question of who speaks loudest and with most passion gets heard . That isn't necessarily the person with an intelligent plan. They will sometimes get shouted down. I am concerned this could become a UKIP type rant about foreign ownership . We also need to consider what is our objective ? This needs to be clear and focused .
For the back to the Valley campaign I understand that by 1990 broadly the club's then owners were onside and Greenwich Council was the target of our protests . Direct action by standing against Councillors who were putting up obstacles to our return was an intelligent 'direct action' with the clever media campaign that was run alongside it . Who is the target this time ? Duchalet ? Katrien ? Given his activities in Liege . I cannot see him being influenced easily.
So what do we want to achieve ? Their removal ? Like others I am in the be careful what you wish for camp on this unless there is a Charlton supporting consortium in the background ready to step in . Even if there is would they keep us at the Valley ? One plus point for me is that Duchalet has ruled out any move .
So what was the most effective mass public meeting I ever went to ? Many years ago I became involved in saving the Newhaven / Dieppe Ferry route when P&O pulled out . I was invited to France where they held a mass meeting of interested stakeholders . Firstly the meeting was held in the round . The participants faced each other rather than a top table . This made me feel I was an equal participant . The leaders of the campaign had a clear objective and this was written and everyone agreed with it and discussed how we could achieve it . As a result we achieved our objective and the French Authorities provided a subsidy to allow the line to continue.
My concern is similar to what @Rothko said earlier .We know what we are against but what are we for?
I certainly do not support a season ticket boycott . What that would do is make it almost certain it will be League 1 football . In who's interest would that be ?
The focus of the Valley campaign until 1990 was the club's board of directors. The petition in 1986 was aimed at the club, not the council. That produced a lot of the issues that will surface here about support for the team, the good things the owner had done and people saying it was better to be in the First Division at Selhurst than staying at The Valley, i.e. the move was a price worth paying. People forget that now, but it was very much the case then.
So, yes, any position taken up will be divisive. All you can do is make sure is that it is reasonable and proportionate and aim to take as many people along with you as possible. That is what the trust has aimed to do, but if you set impossible targets then of course it will fail to meet them.
Personally Raz I think it should be a Trust meeting* and the Trust should stop being facilitators but leaders, otherwise why should the club meet with fans facilitators?
*Just because the meeting is a Trust meeting does not mean non Trust members can't attend.
Disagree. Needs to open and shared with pulling in all different forums and supporters. Trust members need to remember that are are not in charge and are part of the Charlton support. The aim for an owner who provides investment who makes competent football decisions who can bring the club forward. All creative, sharp and entertaining ideas should be welcome. One of the very positive and encouraging things is the involvement of ITTV and Not 606 forums. Without them, what of note will be achieved ? A United support can get things done.
Hell yeah I think that the most important and telling things are that all fans are represented, but you will need structure and leaders and you will need an agenda that is able to be accountable and be able to be measured for success
Lol, I will now mate I can see what's going to happen at the meeting from the way the posts are going, I hope thoae managing and facilitating the meeting don't fall into.the mistakes that seemingly are being made
So why not come along and make your point of view. I know you have said you will not, but I figured you would have the courage and change your mind. In any case it will not be a waste of time... you can buy me that pint you owe me!
the more I think about it the more I may just do it ken tbh, if it's the 18th I will either be in Holland or Milan getting flights won't be the issue but an over running event could be
If it's pre 16th and or post 26th then it won't be an issue
Believe me if I was in the UK regardless of location I'd get there even though I don't subscribe to the view and I would pay my share to cover the effort and costs
There will be a chairman who will moderate proceedings
There will be a clear set of rules published in advance, anyone who contravenes the rules (in the opinion of the chair) will be asked to leave. To be clear any language which is personally insulting, xenophobic or racist will not be tolerated
There will be a chairman who will moderate proceedings
There will be a clear set of rules published in advance, anyone who contravenes the rules (in the opinion of the chair) will be asked to leave. To be clear any language which is personally insulting, xinophobic or racist will not be tolerated
There will be a chairman who will moderate proceedings
There will be a clear set of rules published in advance, anyone who contravenes the rules (in the opinion of the chair) will be asked to leave. To be clear any language which is personally insulting, xinophobic or racist will not be tolerated
Great starting point
We probably should have made that clear for starters - apologies - I thought it would have been a given that we'd have someone chairing it and bad behavior wouldn't be tolerated.
I want you to know se9 that although I differ in opinion i do honestly wish this meeting to be a success because it needs to be the way that issues get dealt with
If I can I will be at the meeting. My opinion is that just like the OP on the Bothered thread has stated I will still be going as my stance is I will be going longer than any owner will be in charge of us.
That said I'm not happy with the nonsense that has been going on particularly since the dismissal of Peeters. So I will stop giving the club any of my money bar the price of mine and the kids season tickets. The 5 year ticket will not be renewed (although that has more to do with Richard Murray's pisstake response to the shortfall we have had at last years VIP meeting), until the owners are clear with what they are doing.
I feel the most effective way of getting a message across would be something to Man Utd false wearing the clubs original colours (yellow and green). The trust come up with a simple design, produce and sell something (scarf?) the fans can wear at games that will show their dissatisfaction. The Trust could have a small surplus on top of the price which would go into its own account and they could use for future initiatives.
Posting having only skim-read the last page, apologies if some of these points have already been made elsewhere.
From the sounds of it there definitely needs to be a leadership group in charge of any such meeting, I would suggest the Trust to front this but to also have representatives from other relevent supporter groups so all Charlton fans are pulling in the same direction and it's no fighting from within. As others have said history shows as a club we are at our strongest when we all pull together.
A public meeting should aim to achieve an outcome, is it to present KM a series of concerns which at the very least should be acknowledged and action taken on by KM, RD or whoever? And if not, be able to provide reasons why? Supporters should be able to raise there concerns but it all needs to be documented in a way that is presentable to KM etc. I appreciate there was the train confrontation after the Watford game but those kind of confrontations will never produce the required answers but I do appreciate a lot of valid points were raised.
What's more likely to work is having a representative from the Trust meet KM at the club and raise the concerns brought about from the public meeting. It should also be made clear to KM that such a requested meeting has now been escalated as a result of a public meeting due to refusing to meet supporter groups from previous requests. It also needs to be made clear the longer they refuse to meet a Trust representative the 'louder' the Trust voice will become i.e. get local media such as the NewsShopper, SLP involved, then start to involve national media and social media.
It may all sound a bit un-necessary at this stage but for me this is the kind of approach that needs to be taken and it definitely needs some clear leadership and I would suggest the Trust to head this based on what Portsmouth and there Trust has done. Just ensure all supporter groups are involved and that a clear set of rational concerns are raised at any public meeting of fans which should be accessible to all fans not just trust members.
Posting having only skim-read the last page, apologies if some of these points have already been made elsewhere.
From the sounds of it there definitely needs to be a leadership group in charge of any such meeting, I would suggest the Trust to front this but to also have representatives from other relevent supporter groups so all Charlton fans are pulling in the same direction and it's no fighting from within. As others have said history shows as a club we are at our strongest when we all pull together.
A public meeting should aim to achieve an outcome, is it to present KM a series of concerns which at the very least should be acknowledged and action taken on by KM, RD or whoever? And if not, be able to provide reasons why? Supporters should be able to raise there concerns but it all needs to be documented in a way that is presentable to KM etc. I appreciate there was the train confrontation after the Watford game but those kind of confrontations will never produce the required answers but I do appreciate a lot of valid points were raised.
What's more likely to work is having a representative from the Trust meet KM at the club and raise the concerns brought about from the public meeting. It should also be made clear to KM that such a requested meeting has now been escalated as a result of a public meeting due to refusing to meet supporter groups from previous requests. It also needs to be made clear the longer they refuse to meet a Trust representative the 'louder' the Trust voice will become i.e. get local media such as the NewsShopper, SLP involved, then start to involve national media and social media.
It may all sound a bit un-necessary at this stage but for me this is the kind of approach that needs to be taken and it definitely needs some clear leadership and I would suggest the Trust to head this based on what Portsmouth and there Trust has done. Just ensure all supporter groups are involved and that a clear set of rational concerns are raised at any public meeting of fans which should be accessible to all fans not just trust members.
Agree but also that when presenting concerns that supporters that regularly post on ITTV and Not 606 / platforms and other representative group are considered to go alongside to meet KM to raise concerns (if this what is discussed and decided / if KM agrees to meet as well - alongside other courses of action). Also that KM knows that it is not just the Trust but a broad group of supporters and that concerns are reflected from the meeting.
VFF yes I agree other groups such as ITTV / Not 606 etc should all be involved and have a representative should they wish to be part of a leadership group if you like made up of all supporter groups. I just feel an approach to KM is best headed under one group and that being the Trust.
Got details of the next VIP meeting in the post today. Tuesday 17th February. Have put in my question to Katrien. I am sure she will remember me from last years meeting.
Personally Raz I think it should be a Trust meeting* and the Trust should stop being facilitators but leaders, otherwise why should the club meet with fans facilitators?
*Just because the meeting is a Trust meeting does not mean non Trust members can't attend.
Disagree. Needs to open and shared with pulling in all different forums and supporters. Trust members need to remember that are are not in charge and are part of the Charlton support. The aim for an owner who provides investment who makes competent football decisions who can bring the club forward. All creative, sharp and entertaining ideas should be welcome. One of the very positive and encouraging things is the involvement of ITTV and Not 606 forums. Without them, what of note will be achieved ? A United support can get things done.
SOMEONE needs to be in charge.
Agreed, taking leadership does not need to exclude non Trust members which seems to be the response from various to my comment nor does leadership exclude facilitation of the broad spectrum of supporters views.
If it does take place on the 18th we'd have had 3 fixtures by then. They're all against tough opposition as well so it will be interesting to see if we've picked up any points from them.
Not that the results will determine what people's feelings are, that's pretty clear to see. But if we've lost all 3 then I can certainly see it adding argument to the mess of the last month in the window.
1 out of 3 down. I didn't expect anything today, but emotions will be running high if we don't get one win out the next 2 games.
Roland owns,or is a major Shareholder in Four Club,s with another one rumoured.Is there any other Business Man that owns as many Football Clubs? too many fingers in the pie for any loyalty.
The Pozzo family own Watford, Udinese and Granada and I don't think it's been a complete disaster. I'd probably prefer that Charlton were the sole focus of the person that owns our club, but the "network" model in itself could possibly work provided the people overseeing it are competent.
The last six words are the key. It also needs those running it to realise that football works in different ways in different countries and is not a commodity that's the same in England as it is in ... I don't know, say Belgium.
VFF yes I agree other groups such as ITTV / Not 606 etc should all be involved and have a representative
Seen this sort of thing crop up a few times.
'Forums' do not / should not have opinions. There is no such thing as 'CL are saying etc'. It is the people who use the forums that have opinions, and a forum should just be there to facilitate that and provide the platform.
As you can see on here, there is every view possible on the Charlton situation being offered and debated, exactly how it should be. How could someone ever 'represent' that under an agreed collective?
Comments
*Just because the meeting is a Trust meeting does not mean non Trust members can't attend.
Don't forget, since you were around then, the Valley Party had no "leader" and even the core group was a flexible team which just naturally worked well together towards a common goal. Right now, nobody can be sure that we agree on a common goal. We have a common concern, thats not the same thing.
If it was a "Trust meeting", we'd also have to ensure priority was given to Trust members who wished to attend.
However, I also agree with Kap10, above, this should be their meeting, yes, an open meeting but their meeting, we need someone to lead the way, why not the trust.
I also agree with NLA, if only 100-150 people show up it would be pretty embarrassing and, in my opinion, a real step back. Imagine how easy it would be for RD to dismiss anything that came from the meeting. 150 is a tiny % of our fan base,for this to work, numbers are needed, imo, so anyone that can attend, should.
My experience on UK style Town Hall meetings is that they are not normally productive unless strongly chaired and have a clear direction . Otherwise it is a question of who speaks loudest and with most passion gets heard . That isn't necessarily the person with an intelligent plan. They will sometimes get shouted down. I am concerned this could become a UKIP type rant about foreign ownership . We also need to consider what is our objective ? This needs to be clear and focused .
For the back to the Valley campaign I understand that by 1990 broadly the club's then owners were onside and Greenwich Council was the target of our protests . Direct action by standing against Councillors who were putting up obstacles to our return was an intelligent 'direct action' with the clever media campaign that was run alongside it . Who is the target this time ? Duchalet ? Katrien ? Given his activities in Liege . I cannot see him being influenced easily.
So what do we want to achieve ? Their removal ? Like others I am in the be careful what you wish for camp on this unless there is a Charlton supporting consortium in the background ready to step in . Even if there is would they keep us at the Valley ? One plus point for me is that Duchalet has ruled out any move .
So what was the most effective mass public meeting I ever went to ? Many years ago I became involved in saving the Newhaven / Dieppe Ferry route when P&O pulled out . I was invited to France where they held a mass meeting of interested stakeholders . Firstly the meeting was held in the round . The participants faced each other rather than a top table . This made me feel I was an equal participant . The leaders of the campaign had a clear objective and this was written and everyone agreed with it and discussed how we could achieve it . As a result we achieved our objective and the French Authorities provided a subsidy to allow the line to continue.
My concern is similar to what @Rothko said earlier .We know what we are against but what are we for?
I certainly do not support a season ticket boycott . What that would do is make it almost certain it will be League 1 football . In who's interest would that be ?
It will be a real shame if it falls down before it gets a chance to start
So, yes, any position taken up will be divisive. All you can do is make sure is that it is reasonable and proportionate and aim to take as many people along with you as possible. That is what the trust has aimed to do, but if you set impossible targets then of course it will fail to meet them.
If it's pre 16th and or post 26th then it won't be an issue
Believe me if I was in the UK regardless of location I'd get there even though I don't subscribe to the view and I would pay my share to cover the effort and costs
There will be a clear set of rules published in advance, anyone who contravenes the rules (in the opinion of the chair) will be asked to leave. To be clear any language which is personally insulting, xenophobic or racist will not be tolerated
Great starting point
That said I'm not happy with the nonsense that has been going on particularly since the dismissal of Peeters. So I will stop giving the club any of my money bar the price of mine and the kids season tickets. The 5 year ticket will not be renewed (although that has more to do with Richard Murray's pisstake response to the shortfall we have had at last years VIP meeting), until the owners are clear with what they are doing.
I feel the most effective way of getting a message across would be something to Man Utd false wearing the clubs original colours (yellow and green). The trust come up with a simple design, produce and sell something (scarf?) the fans can wear at games that will show their dissatisfaction. The Trust could have a small surplus on top of the price which would go into its own account and they could use for future initiatives.
From the sounds of it there definitely needs to be a leadership group in charge of any such meeting, I would suggest the Trust to front this but to also have representatives from other relevent supporter groups so all Charlton fans are pulling in the same direction and it's no fighting from within. As others have said history shows as a club we are at our strongest when we all pull together.
A public meeting should aim to achieve an outcome, is it to present KM a series of concerns which at the very least should be acknowledged and action taken on by KM, RD or whoever? And if not, be able to provide reasons why? Supporters should be able to raise there concerns but it all needs to be documented in a way that is presentable to KM etc. I appreciate there was the train confrontation after the Watford game but those kind of confrontations will never produce the required answers but I do appreciate a lot of valid points were raised.
What's more likely to work is having a representative from the Trust meet KM at the club and raise the concerns brought about from the public meeting. It should also be made clear to KM that such a requested meeting has now been escalated as a result of a public meeting due to refusing to meet supporter groups from previous requests. It also needs to be made clear the longer they refuse to meet a Trust representative the 'louder' the Trust voice will become i.e. get local media such as the NewsShopper, SLP involved, then start to involve national media and social media.
It may all sound a bit un-necessary at this stage but for me this is the kind of approach that needs to be taken and it definitely needs some clear leadership and I would suggest the Trust to head this based on what Portsmouth and there Trust has done. Just ensure all supporter groups are involved and that a clear set of rational concerns are raised at any public meeting of fans which should be accessible to all fans not just trust members.
The venue, I assume will be near The Valley but some people will heed some notice if they are to attend.
'Forums' do not / should not have opinions. There is no such thing as 'CL are saying etc'. It is the people who use the forums that have opinions, and a forum should just be there to facilitate that and provide the platform.
As you can see on here, there is every view possible on the Charlton situation being offered and debated, exactly how it should be. How could someone ever 'represent' that under an agreed collective?