As suggested by @razil, I have emailed the CAST secretary with further thoughts. Thought I would post on here for wider information and/or debate:
So, what are the next steps as a result of last night's meeting?
There were some interesting thoughts put forward but I'm sure that many present will have thoughts to add. Nor was there the time or indeed the necessary process to debate and evaluate options.
My thoughts are as follows. Some of them were mentioned by others last night:
1. Vocalise dissatisfaction with the regime - before and after the game, but NOT during it, when we should get behind the team like never before. The contrast would be very clear.
2. Start a media campaign - which must make very clear what we are dissatisfied about and what we actually want to happen.
3. Visual protest - the young guy who had the banner saying "Made in Charlton, Destroyed in Belgium" confiscated has, I believe been threatened with a stadium ban. Get T shirts made with that slogan on, and sell them, and reveal them at a game. They can't ban that many people.
4. Prepare a business case for supporter engagement and inclusion - which says, in hard business as well as emotional terms why RD should engage with us. Include a specific proposal for a different type of Fans Forum where regular meetings are held with representatives of supporters groups on jointly proposed agenda items.
5. Liaise with other network clubs supporters groups - for sharing of best practice, shared learning, mutual support and co-ordinated protests.
6. Explore the possibility of challenging RD's network model through the FA, UEFA and FIFA - looking specifically at the issues associated with intra-network loans and transfers (fairness and financial transparency), shared resources, impact on the competitiveness of individual network components (clubs).
7. Engage with Richard Murray - to potentially act as an initial means of approaching RD and as a facilitator.
8. Communicate with fans - to explain what is being done and why, seek to assure those who are concerned at protests/actions. It is important to avoid personal insults and denigrating comments about RD, KM and GL, which will only alienate those who are positive about the regime.
I would take objection to many of these proposed protests. If protests follow a path that supporters (other supporters) feel may be dangerously damaging to the club then you may find that the silent majority/minority are forced into action with protests of their own against their own.
Fair enough mate. You're welcome to your opinion. Might be a bit more useful to say what you would suggest instead though. Unless you think everything is rosy and nothing needs doing.
The Trust is there to provide a voice to the supporter and safeguard the future of the Club. Who do I go to when/if the Trust itself is leading the charge against my club?
If the Trust was doing any such thing I really doubt that Richard Murray would waste his time talking to us and advising us in the way that he has done more or less continuously for the last year.
Whatever people think of Richard Murray at this point, some of you need to ponder why he is talking to these terrible people in the trust if the world is as you see it and why he isn't asking them to desist.
Whatever people think of Richard Murray at this point, some of you need to ponder why he is talking to these terrible people in the trust if the world is as you see it and why he isn't asking them to desist.
So RM has been advising you (the 'you' I assume being the Trust and/or the G21) in your struggle? Not asking you to desist would infer encouragement.
How does that sit with his role as a NED, presumably for which he draws some kind of remuneration. Fidelity is an implied term of every contract, whether that be a director's Service Contract or indeed a Contract of Employment. Is RD fully aware of this apparent conflict of interest? (I'm sure he is now).
What advice has he been giving, Rick - or is that a secret?
Do you think it would be useful to split the non-network signings between in and outside the emergency load window since we cannot sign from the network in those periods ?
Thanks very much, Hex. Good Idea, that maybe something I can look at.
Whatever people think of Richard Murray at this point, some of you need to ponder why he is talking to these terrible people in the trust if the world is as you see it and why he isn't asking them to desist.
So RM has been advising you (the 'you' I assume being the Trust and/or the G21) in your struggle? Not asking you to desist would infer encouragement.
How does that sit with his role as a NED, presumably for which he draws some kind of remuneration. Fidelity is an implied term of every contract, whether that be a director's Service Contract or indeed a Contract of Employment. Is RD fully aware of this apparent conflict of interest? (I'm sure he is now).
What advice has he been giving, Rick - or is that a secret?
You couldn't make it up - only at Charlton.
I'm referring to Prague's quote, since Prague is a board member of the trust, although he and Steve Clarke, now on that board but not then, were certainly involved in the G21.
My point is that when people come on here and make assertions about what the trust is doing they ought to ponder this statement by Prague and wonder why they are more belligerent on behalf of the owner than the chairman appears to be.
Pleased and a little surprised that those speaking against 'action' where not shouted down and even applauded. It sounds as if it was mostly the older supporters there, which may have been a factor.
What's peoples views/guess on why there were so few younger supporters there?
Like you I had expected that there would be some shouting down of neutrals and pro Network, one speaker (I think the first non anti RD) did have rubbish shouted but that was the only blot so well done to all of us there for the respect given. Well done to the Trust for organising, but next time can we have it in the warm, as Steve Dixon so ungraciously pointed out we're getting of an age when the cold gets deep in ones bones.
Whatever people think of Richard Murray at this point, some of you need to ponder why he is talking to these terrible people in the trust if the world is as you see it and why he isn't asking them to desist.
So RM has been advising you (the 'you' I assume being the Trust and/or the G21) in your struggle? Not asking you to desist would infer encouragement.
How does that sit with his role as a NED, presumably for which he draws some kind of remuneration. Fidelity is an implied term of every contract, whether that be a director's Service Contract or indeed a Contract of Employment. Is RD fully aware of this apparent conflict of interest? (I'm sure he is now).
What advice has he been giving, Rick - or is that a secret?
You couldn't make it up - only at Charlton.
It's not a big secret, there's nothing underhand in it. Part of his remit is to engage with the fans. Of course he is going to talk to the Trust. It was stated right at the beginning that he would be a link between the fans and the board.
... We do our best to gauge what the spectrum of fan opinion is through the regular use of surveys, and indeed organizing meetings such as last night. The continuation of the debate here is the result of the meeting...
My personal take is that you could broadly categorise the participants at Wednesday's meetings as follows:
It seems to me that a large majority were committed to dialog. For some of those that would be enough, for others there's a desire for more change than just dialog although exactly what and how I don't think there's an consensus at the moment. Those on the ends of the scale, pro-network people and militant anti-network people seemed far fewer in number.
Edit: Perhaps 'undecided' would be a better word to describe the anti-network people's take an action further than dialog, rather than 'unsure'. There were lots of ideas, but I'm not sure any of them were agreed upon.
Stig: the challenge we face is that dialogue requires BOTH parties to communicate and, as things stand, the owner is simply not interested. His mouth-piece is KM and that's all he is willing to offer us. I think most people have lost any hope that we had of KM satisfying our needs from the perspective of getting open, honest answers and detail of the long term business plan for CAFC so the question remains how do we make things change?
Whatever people think of Richard Murray at this point, some of you need to ponder why he is talking to these terrible people in the trust if the world is as you see it and why he isn't asking them to desist.
So RM has been advising you (the 'you' I assume being the Trust and/or the G21) in your struggle? Not asking you to desist would infer encouragement.
How does that sit with his role as a NED, presumably for which he draws some kind of remuneration. Fidelity is an implied term of every contract, whether that be a director's Service Contract or indeed a Contract of Employment. Is RD fully aware of this apparent conflict of interest? (I'm sure he is now).
What advice has he been giving, Rick - or is that a secret?
You couldn't make it up - only at Charlton.
dear oh dear.
If you joined the Trust you could have attended the AGM and listened to RM in person.
He is prepared to talk to members of the Trust because he believes in a fans voice being heard at Board level and has confidence in the current Trust team that we understand the business realities of running a club. That's why among his advice is a regular comment on how much operating loss RD has to cover. He also in the other direction endorses to Katrien Trust activities such as the West Ham Olympic project.
Whatever people think of Richard Murray at this point, some of you need to ponder why he is talking to these terrible people in the trust if the world is as you see it and why he isn't asking them to desist.
So RM has been advising you (the 'you' I assume being the Trust and/or the G21) in your struggle? Not asking you to desist would infer encouragement.
How does that sit with his role as a NED, presumably for which he draws some kind of remuneration. Fidelity is an implied term of every contract, whether that be a director's Service Contract or indeed a Contract of Employment. Is RD fully aware of this apparent conflict of interest? (I'm sure he is now).
What advice has he been giving, Rick - or is that a secret?
You couldn't make it up - only at Charlton.
dear oh dear.
If you joined the Trust you could have attended the AGM and listened to RM in person.
He is prepared to talk to members of the Trust because he believes in a fans voice being heard at Board level and has confidence in the current Trust team that we understand the business realities of running a club. That's why among his advice is a regular comment on how much operating loss RD has to cover. He also in the other direction endorses to Katrien Trust activities such as the West Ham Olympic project.
I accept all of that, Prague. My comment was based around AB's assertion that RM wasn't asking the Trust to desist in their actions. That I believe is a conflict of interest in his role as a director of the club.
Moreover, if having regular dialogue with RM over the past year has still lead us to the situation where meetings are called to discuss fan mood and potential action then his role as the go-between has patently failed.
As suggested by @razil, I have emailed the CAST secretary with further thoughts. Thought I would post on here for wider information and/or debate:
So, what are the next steps as a result of last night's meeting?
There were some interesting thoughts put forward but I'm sure that many present will have thoughts to add. Nor was there the time or indeed the necessary process to debate and evaluate options.
My thoughts are as follows. Some of them were mentioned by others last night:
1. Vocalise dissatisfaction with the regime - before and after the game, but NOT during it, when we should get behind the team like never before. The contrast would be very clear.
2. Start a media campaign - which must make very clear what we are dissatisfied about and what we actually want to happen.
3. Visual protest - the young guy who had the banner saying "Made in Charlton, Destroyed in Belgium" confiscated has, I believe been threatened with a stadium ban. Get T shirts made with that slogan on, and sell them, and reveal them at a game. They can't ban that many people.
4. Prepare a business case for supporter engagement and inclusion - which says, in hard business as well as emotional terms why RD should engage with us. Include a specific proposal for a different type of Fans Forum where regular meetings are held with representatives of supporters groups on jointly proposed agenda items.
5. Liaise with other network clubs supporters groups - for sharing of best practice, shared learning, mutual support and co-ordinated protests.
6. Explore the possibility of challenging RD's network model through the FA, UEFA and FIFA - looking specifically at the issues associated with intra-network loans and transfers (fairness and financial transparency), shared resources, impact on the competitiveness of individual network components (clubs).
7. Engage with Richard Murray - to potentially act as an initial means of approaching RD and as a facilitator.
8. Communicate with fans - to explain what is being done and why, seek to assure those who are concerned at protests/actions. It is important to avoid personal insults and denigrating comments about RD, KM and GL, which will only alienate those who are positive about the regime.
I would take objection to many of these proposed protests. If protests follow a path that supporters (other supporters) feel may be dangerously damaging to the club then you may find that the silent majority/minority are forced into action with protests of their own against their own.
Fair enough mate. You're welcome to your opinion. Might be a bit more useful to say what you would suggest instead though. Unless you think everything is rosy and nothing needs doing.
The Trust is there to provide a voice to the supporter and safeguard the future of the Club. Who do I go to when/if the Trust itself is leading the charge against my club?
If the Trust was doing any such thing I really doubt that Richard Murray would waste his time talking to us and advising us in the way that he has done more or less continuously for the last year.
Whatever people think of Richard Murray at this point, some of you need to ponder why he is talking to these terrible people in the trust if the world is as you see it and why he isn't asking them to desist.
Similarly one might need to ponder why he assisted the current (terrible?) lot (and the last mob) to take control of our club?
If KM spoke to us that would be a start. But the problem is, there is a mutual lack of trust there after recent events. The other thing that bothers me, is not so much that the club has made mistakes, but that it is unwilling to acknowledge them. This is a recipe for continued mistakes. If I was KM and the trust or Airman offered me free advice, I would be very interested in listening to it.
Whatever people think of Richard Murray at this point, some of you need to ponder why he is talking to these terrible people in the trust if the world is as you see it and why he isn't asking them to desist.
So RM has been advising you (the 'you' I assume being the Trust and/or the G21) in your struggle? Not asking you to desist would infer encouragement.
How does that sit with his role as a NED, presumably for which he draws some kind of remuneration. Fidelity is an implied term of every contract, whether that be a director's Service Contract or indeed a Contract of Employment. Is RD fully aware of this apparent conflict of interest? (I'm sure he is now).
What advice has he been giving, Rick - or is that a secret?
You couldn't make it up - only at Charlton.
dear oh dear.
If you joined the Trust you could have attended the AGM and listened to RM in person.
He is prepared to talk to members of the Trust because he believes in a fans voice being heard at Board level and has confidence in the current Trust team that we understand the business realities of running a club. That's why among his advice is a regular comment on how much operating loss RD has to cover. He also in the other direction endorses to Katrien Trust activities such as the West Ham Olympic project.
I accept all of that, Prague. My comment was based around AB's assertion that RM wasn't asking the Trust to desist in their actions. That I believe is a conflict of interest in his role as a director of the club.
Moreover, if having regular dialogue with RM over the past year has still lead us to the situation where meetings are called to discuss fan mood and potential action then his role as the go-between has patently failed.
There's no channel of 2 way communication between anyone and RD unfortunately. RM's presence during and after the takeover is/was a reassurance that there will be a familiar face during the transition. He remains now because of his love for the club and presumably to monitor how realistic getting that £7m back is.
I'm not sure if this role was officially taken away from RM when there was the restructuring, but this is what he was saying soon after takeover, “In many ways I’m going to have the relationship with the fans, which is the one I enjoy and will be speaking on behalf of the board when it’s appropriate… I’ll be there if people want to know more about corporate affairs”.
... We do our best to gauge what the spectrum of fan opinion is through the regular use of surveys, and indeed organizing meetings such as last night. The continuation of the debate here is the result of the meeting...
My personal take is that you could broadly categorise the participants at Wednesday's meetings as follows:
It seems to me that a large majority were committed to dialog. For some of those that would be enough, for others there's a desire for more change than just dialog although exactly what and how I don't think there's an consensus at the moment. Those on the ends of the scale, pro-network people and militant anti-network people seemed far fewer in number.
Edit: Perhaps 'undecided' would be a better word to describe the anti-network people's take an action further than dialog, rather than 'unsure'. There were lots of ideas, but I'm not sure any of them were agreed upon.
Looks good but it should not be assumed that being pro-network means that someone is happy with the status quo and wants no change.
I am pro the concept of a network but am fully aware that a change is required, not least because RD's original plans have been adversely affected by the destruction of FFP by other clubs.
I must say that this has rather surprised me, to say the least!
Not a couple of days ago the club was getting absolute pelters for not talking to the fans and to the Trust in particular - that was what the headline in the News Shopper was all about and, indeed, the start of the Trust's survey seemed to suggest that it was needed because communications with the club had broken down.
Now the suggestion is that a main board director and one of the three most important people at the club has the specific remit to speak to the fans and to the Trust and is doing exactly that on a regular basis?
When people were talking of being 'treated like children by a club that would not talk to them', did the Trust not feel a responsibility to state very clearly that there was an established line of communication that was regularly used?
If I am reading this right, then if I was RM then I think I would feel rather betrayed that no-one from the Trust was prepared to make a clear statement that I was indeed doing my job properly. I might also wonder why I should bother in the future.
As I say, I may well have got the wrong end of the stick on this, in which case, my apologies.
... We do our best to gauge what the spectrum of fan opinion is through the regular use of surveys, and indeed organizing meetings such as last night. The continuation of the debate here is the result of the meeting...
My personal take is that you could broadly categorise the participants at Wednesday's meetings as follows:
It seems to me that a large majority were committed to dialog. For some of those that would be enough, for others there's a desire for more change than just dialog although exactly what and how I don't think there's an consensus at the moment. Those on the ends of the scale, pro-network people and militant anti-network people seemed far fewer in number.
Edit: Perhaps 'undecided' would be a better word to describe the anti-network people's take an action further than dialog, rather than 'unsure'. There were lots of ideas, but I'm not sure any of them were agreed upon.
Looks good but it should not be assumed that being pro-network means that someone is happy with the status quo and wants no change.
I am pro the concept of a network but am fully aware that a change is required, not least because RD's original plans have been adversely affected by the destruction of FFP by other clubs.
I must say that this has rather surprised me, to say the least!
Not a couple of days ago the club was getting absolute pelters for not talking to the fans and to the Trust in particular - that was what the headline in the News Shopper was all about and, indeed, the start of the Trust's survey seemed to suggest that it was needed because communications with the club had broken down.
Now the suggestion is that a main board director and one of the three most important people at the club has the specific remit to speak to the fans and to the Trust and is doing exactly that on a regular basis?
When people were talking of being 'treated like children by a club that would not talk to them', did the Trust not feel a responsibility to state very clearly that there was an established line of communication that was regularly used?
If I am reading this right, then if I was RM then I think I would feel rather betrayed that no-one from the Trust was prepared to make a clear statement that I was indeed doing my job properly. I might also wonder why I should bother in the future.
As I say, I may well have got the wrong end of the stick on this, in which case, my apologies.
The problem surely is that neither KM nor RM can talk about the relationship between the club, the network and RD's business interests. We are given only the opportunity to engage on issues peripheral to the main concerns. RD has carefully placed a shield between his personal interests and the club's that cannot be pierced by conventional communication lines.
I must say that this has rather surprised me, to say the least!
Not a couple of days ago the club was getting absolute pelters for not talking to the fans and to the Trust in particular - that was what the headline in the News Shopper was all about and, indeed, the start of the Trust's survey seemed to suggest that it was needed because communications with the club had broken down.
Now the suggestion is that a main board director and one of the three most important people at the club has the specific remit to speak to the fans and to the Trust and is doing exactly that on a regular basis?
When people were talking of being 'treated like children by a club that would not talk to them', did the Trust not feel a responsibility to state very clearly that there was an established line of communication that was regularly used?
If I am reading this right, then if I was RM then I think I would feel rather betrayed that no-one from the Trust was prepared to make a clear statement that I was indeed doing my job properly. I might also wonder why I should bother in the future.
As I say, I may well have got the wrong end of the stick on this, in which case, my apologies.
Blimey, this clarification needs an Eastenders soundtrack....dush dush.....
I must say that this has rather surprised me, to say the least!
Not a couple of days ago the club was getting absolute pelters for not talking to the fans and to the Trust in particular - that was what the headline in the News Shopper was all about and, indeed, the start of the Trust's survey seemed to suggest that it was needed because communications with the club had broken down.
Now the suggestion is that a main board director and one of the three most important people at the club has the specific remit to speak to the fans and to the Trust and is doing exactly that on a regular basis?
When people were talking of being 'treated like children by a club that would not talk to them', did the Trust not feel a responsibility to state very clearly that there was an established line of communication that was regularly used?
If I am reading this right, then if I was RM then I think I would feel rather betrayed that no-one from the Trust was prepared to make a clear statement that I was indeed doing my job properly. I might also wonder why I should bother in the future.
As I say, I may well have got the wrong end of the stick on this, in which case, my apologies.
You assume, however, that he understands what Roland is doing, fully supports it and is able to explain it through his contacts with the trust and therefore reassure trust board members privately as well as making public statements at meetings like last Tuesday.
I take it you would agree that if the chairman of the club - and self-proclaimed link with the fans - isn't able to do that then there is something amiss?
This isn't a criticism of RM. I think he is kept at arm's length too.
I dont think anyone from the Trust has criticised Murray. And as has been mentioned he attended our AGM and a meeting in the city earlier. But I also think even he might admit his role and influence as a non executive chairman is quite limited, even within that job title. I think he has said and done a role of link between fans and club, but he isn't in charge clearly.
KM has already met with us several times so why not again in a time of great concern/crisis'? No one is suggesting she shouldn't meet other fans groups either. KM could have suggested an emergency meeting of the FF but she didnt, she said she had nothing more to add.
Given the concerns of Wednesday night, I think theire is scope for a rethink and some dialogue. So why not meet the challenge head on, that to me would be the biggest PR coup for KM.
@razil - I am sure that nobody is wanting to criticise RM and you might well be right that a new way of talking would be best, but, if it were you who had been given a remit to talk to the fans and to the Trust, and you felt that you were doing so appropriately, would you not feel in the least bit betrayed if there had been all this talk on this message board that the club won't talk to the fans, but nobody from the Trust felt that they should put out a very clear statement that you were, in fact, talking to them on a regular basis?
And then the Trust organises a meeting of fans, from which the blaring headline is about the club not talking to the fans, and again, nobody thinks to mention, 'oh yes, razil does talk to us on a regular basis'.
As I say, I think, if it were me, I would feel rather betrayed and wonder why I should bother in future. Maybe I am being unfair and I am wrong. If so, I will be happy to take it back.
@Airman Brown - well, yes I do rather need to assume that he understands RD's vision and goals bearing in mind that he has seemed (on the very few occasions that I have seen him talk about it) very happy to talk about exactly that. At very least, he has chosen to stay in a role of communicating with the fans, which, to me at least, suggests that he feels he is able to do that on the key issues.
At very least, has anyone shown him the courtesy of asking him if he feels that he is capable of understanding and explaining RD's vision, rather than just assuming that he is not and should be sidelined?
The problem surely is that neither KM nor RM can talk about the relationship between the club, the network and RD's business interests. We are given only the opportunity to engage on issues peripheral to the main concerns. RD has carefully placed a shield between his personal interests and the club's that cannot be pierced by conventional communication lines.
Are you really surprised? (especially the bit I've bolded).
Does any owner of any business truly share their personal interests outside a strictly private and confidential circle? Why on earth should they? The expectation of those calling for Roland to spill all his beans is almost laughable in its naivety.
He is the man who is covering our financial losses, he is the man who is trying to support the club's success on the field, he is the man who sanctions the wages of the likes of Chris Eagles, he is the man who finances the transfers of players like Igor. It's his money - I repeat HIS money, not yours or mine but HIS.
How long into the RD era was the G21 formed? 2-3 months? Pretty much since then (or actually even before then) there has been a witch-hunt against RD and KM - and more recently GL. Have RD/KM made errors of judgement - yes? Does it look as though they are learning from them? Maybe (Eagles is a prime example of satisfying this feeding frenzy that has included 'we must have players with English Championship experience' - which is bollox in my view anyway).
The furore that surrounded Luzon's appointment and the 'liargate' debacle - executive of a business in misinformation shock? Error by KM - yes - but she really didn't deserve the lynching.
The main players in the unrest are the same main players in the Valley Party successes. They will all and forever have my, and the vast majority of fans, gratitude. That was then, this is now - and calls by members of that cohort for RD to sell up and go, as I commented on another thread, are destructive. How anyone thinks RD would want to speak with these people is beyond belief.
I believe RD wants us to be successful - otherwise it's a very public display of masochism. Of course he isn't getting everything right now but I have every belief/hope that he will. If he doesn't he will move on.
I must say that this has rather surprised me, to say the least!
Not a couple of days ago the club was getting absolute pelters for not talking to the fans and to the Trust in particular - that was what the headline in the News Shopper was all about and, indeed, the start of the Trust's survey seemed to suggest that it was needed because communications with the club had broken down.
Now the suggestion is that a main board director and one of the three most important people at the club has the specific remit to speak to the fans and to the Trust and is doing exactly that on a regular basis?
When people were talking of being 'treated like children by a club that would not talk to them', did the Trust not feel a responsibility to state very clearly that there was an established line of communication that was regularly used?
If I am reading this right, then if I was RM then I think I would feel rather betrayed that no-one from the Trust was prepared to make a clear statement that I was indeed doing my job properly. I might also wonder why I should bother in the future.
As I say, I may well have got the wrong end of the stick on this, in which case, my apologies.
The problem surely is that neither KM nor RM can talk about the relationship between the club, the network and RD's business interests. We are given only the opportunity to engage on issues peripheral to the main concerns. RD has carefully placed a shield between his personal interests and the club's that cannot be pierced by conventional communication lines.
Of course he has! Does Duchatelet have the right to ask me how much money to spend on Charlton? Of course not!
So, why should we have any right to now what his "personal interests" are!
@razil - I am sure that nobody is wanting to criticise RM and you might well be right that a new way of talking would be best, but, if it were you who had been given a remit to talk to the fans and to the Trust, and you felt that you were doing so appropriately, would you not feel in the least bit betrayed if there had been all this talk on this message board that the club won't talk to the fans, but nobody from the Trust felt that they should put out a very clear statement that you were, in fact, talking to them on a regular basis?
And then the Trust organises a meeting of fans, from which the blaring headline is about the club not talking to the fans, and again, nobody thinks to mention, 'oh yes, razil does talk to us on a regular basis'.
As I say, I think, if it were me, I would feel rather betrayed and wonder why I should bother in future. Maybe I am being unfair and I am wrong. If so, I will be happy to take it back.
@Airman Brown - well, yes I do rather need to assume that he understands RD's vision and goals bearing in mind that he has seemed (on the very few occasions that I have seen him talk about it) very happy to talk about exactly that. At very least, he has chosen to stay in a role of communicating with the fans, which, to me at least, suggests that he feels he is able to do that on the key issues.
At very least, has anyone shown him the courtesy of asking him if he feels that he is capable of understanding and explaining RD's vision, rather than just assuming that he is not and should be sidelined?
No, I'm sure Prague has never had that conversation with him ...
If RM has told Prague that he doesn't agree with the trust organising the meeting or feels it's unnecessary, I'm sure he wouldn't mind that being made clear on here.
Not a rant but the facts as they are and articulated brilliantly - thanks bobmunro for introducing sanity to what is becoming a madhouse full bitterness.
The main players in the unrest are the same main players in the Valley Party successes. They will all and forever have my, and the vast majority of fans, gratitude. That was then, this is now - and calls by members of that cohort for RD to sell up and go, as I commented on another thread, are destructive. How anyone thinks RD would want to speak with these people is beyond belief.
I believe RD wants us to be successful - otherwise it's a very public display of masochism. Of course he isn't getting everything right now but I have every belief/hope that he will. If he doesn't he will move on.
Comments
How does that sit with his role as a NED, presumably for which he draws some kind of remuneration. Fidelity is an implied term of every contract, whether that be a director's Service Contract or indeed a Contract of Employment. Is RD fully aware of this apparent conflict of interest? (I'm sure he is now).
What advice has he been giving, Rick - or is that a secret?
You couldn't make it up - only at Charlton.
My point is that when people come on here and make assertions about what the trust is doing they ought to ponder this statement by Prague and wonder why they are more belligerent on behalf of the owner than the chairman appears to be.
I doubt if RM is being paid, by the way.
It seems to me that a large majority were committed to dialog. For some of those that would be enough, for others there's a desire for more change than just dialog although exactly what and how I don't think there's an consensus at the moment. Those on the ends of the scale, pro-network people and militant anti-network people seemed far fewer in number.
Edit: Perhaps 'undecided' would be a better word to describe the anti-network people's take an action further than dialog, rather than 'unsure'. There were lots of ideas, but I'm not sure any of them were agreed upon.
dear oh dear.
If you joined the Trust you could have attended the AGM and listened to RM in person.
He is prepared to talk to members of the Trust because he believes in a fans voice being heard at Board level and has confidence in the current Trust team that we understand the business realities of running a club. That's why among his advice is a regular comment on how much operating loss RD has to cover. He also in the other direction endorses to Katrien Trust activities such as the West Ham Olympic project.
Moreover, if having regular dialogue with RM over the past year has still lead us to the situation where meetings are called to discuss fan mood and potential action then his role as the go-between has patently failed.
I am pro the concept of a network but am fully aware that a change is required, not least because RD's original plans have been adversely affected by the destruction of FFP by other clubs.
Not a couple of days ago the club was getting absolute pelters for not talking to the fans and to the Trust in particular - that was what the headline in the News Shopper was all about and, indeed, the start of the Trust's survey seemed to suggest that it was needed because communications with the club had broken down.
Now the suggestion is that a main board director and one of the three most important people at the club has the specific remit to speak to the fans and to the Trust and is doing exactly that on a regular basis?
When people were talking of being 'treated like children by a club that would not talk to them', did the Trust not feel a responsibility to state very clearly that there was an established line of communication that was regularly used?
If I am reading this right, then if I was RM then I think I would feel rather betrayed that no-one from the Trust was prepared to make a clear statement that I was indeed doing my job properly. I might also wonder why I should bother in the future.
As I say, I may well have got the wrong end of the stick on this, in which case, my apologies.
I take it you would agree that if the chairman of the club - and self-proclaimed link with the fans - isn't able to do that then there is something amiss?
This isn't a criticism of RM. I think he is kept at arm's length too.
KM has already met with us several times so why not again in a time of great concern/crisis'? No one is suggesting she shouldn't meet other fans groups either. KM could have suggested an emergency meeting of the FF but she didnt, she said she had nothing more to add.
Given the concerns of Wednesday night, I think theire is scope for a rethink and some dialogue. So why not meet the challenge head on, that to me would be the biggest PR coup for KM.
And then the Trust organises a meeting of fans, from which the blaring headline is about the club not talking to the fans, and again, nobody thinks to mention, 'oh yes, razil does talk to us on a regular basis'.
As I say, I think, if it were me, I would feel rather betrayed and wonder why I should bother in future. Maybe I am being unfair and I am wrong. If so, I will be happy to take it back.
@Airman Brown - well, yes I do rather need to assume that he understands RD's vision and goals bearing in mind that he has seemed (on the very few occasions that I have seen him talk about it) very happy to talk about exactly that. At very least, he has chosen to stay in a role of communicating with the fans, which, to me at least, suggests that he feels he is able to do that on the key issues.
At very least, has anyone shown him the courtesy of asking him if he feels that he is capable of understanding and explaining RD's vision, rather than just assuming that he is not and should be sidelined?
Does any owner of any business truly share their personal interests outside a strictly private and confidential circle? Why on earth should they? The expectation of those calling for Roland to spill all his beans is almost laughable in its naivety.
He is the man who is covering our financial losses, he is the man who is trying to support the club's success on the field, he is the man who sanctions the wages of the likes of Chris Eagles, he is the man who finances the transfers of players like Igor. It's his money - I repeat HIS money, not yours or mine but HIS.
How long into the RD era was the G21 formed? 2-3 months? Pretty much since then (or actually even before then) there has been a witch-hunt against RD and KM - and more recently GL. Have RD/KM made errors of judgement - yes? Does it look as though they are learning from them? Maybe (Eagles is a prime example of satisfying this feeding frenzy that has included 'we must have players with English Championship experience' - which is bollox in my view anyway).
The furore that surrounded Luzon's appointment and the 'liargate' debacle - executive of a business in misinformation shock? Error by KM - yes - but she really didn't deserve the lynching.
The main players in the unrest are the same main players in the Valley Party successes. They will all and forever have my, and the vast majority of fans, gratitude. That was then, this is now - and calls by members of that cohort for RD to sell up and go, as I commented on another thread, are destructive. How anyone thinks RD would want to speak with these people is beyond belief.
I believe RD wants us to be successful - otherwise it's a very public display of masochism. Of course he isn't getting everything right now but I have every belief/hope that he will. If he doesn't he will move on.
Rant over.
So, why should we have any right to now what his "personal interests" are!
If RM has told Prague that he doesn't agree with the trust organising the meeting or feels it's unnecessary, I'm sure he wouldn't mind that being made clear on here.
The main players in the unrest are the same main players in the Valley Party successes. They will all and forever have my, and the vast majority of fans, gratitude. That was then, this is now - and calls by members of that cohort for RD to sell up and go, as I commented on another thread, are destructive. How anyone thinks RD would want to speak with these people is beyond belief.
I believe RD wants us to be successful - otherwise it's a very public display of masochism. Of course he isn't getting everything right now but I have every belief/hope that he will. If he doesn't he will move on.
Particularly this