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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
If the new mob had the experience and brain power to "work the crowd" , which they may have, then the truth will be in the attendances and season ticket sales for next season but the refusal to accept the help/advice of others to help them is what really grates on me because I for one would prefer 10k of season ticket holders and 15k average gates than 7k of season ticket holders and 11k gates which is where we are heading
To all those saying he has a lot more to lose than us , I beg to differ, then in numbers and hard cash yes he may lose a lot more than us but it is all relative
If someone earns £1m a year and drops £100k on a bet and someone on £10k a year drops £5k on a bet who's loss will be felt most
That is without taking the emotional attachment of what we have all given to this club , plus the time spent following it and how much it truly means to us , which no monetary equivalent is equatable to
And I don't understand the mechanics of finance but he may be offsetting losses against tax implications so the financial losses aren't black and white
A load of old waffle but my feelings on the stubbornness not to use the experience of some of the old guard to our clubs advantage doesn't sit pretty with me
@Airman Brown - you make a good point that RM is quite capable of saying if he is unhappy, so who am I to defend him? You are probably quite right on that.
But it is not really about the holding of the meeting (he might like the fact that the meeting was held, who knows, lots of people who are 'pro-RD' supported the meeting and were incredibly impressed by how well it was run- myself included), but it is about the reporting of both the meeting and what are supposed to be the Trust's views in general: many people appear to think that the club has refused to talk the Trust and, by extension, the fans. This has been oft repeated on this forum and the slant of the news story was very much that.
Now it seems that this is just not true and nobody from the Trust felt that they should make a strong statement that this is not the case. That i find to be rather corrosive.
OK, I don't necessarily agree that there are clearly questions the RM cannot answer on KM or RD's behalf, but, even assuming that you are right, then surely you have to ask RM the question first and, if he says that he cannot answer it, or if he does not answer it to your satisfaction, then you ask him to refer you up the chain. You do not arbitrarily decide that his remit as the spokesman for the club is worthless and simply demand to talk to the owner above his head!
(I am assuming that he never has said that there are things that he can answer, because I have never been told as much. Certainly I cannot recall seeing where he was asked these questions and his answers were seen to be unsatisfactory.)
As I say, I hugely respect the Trust and the people involved and I was incredibly impressed with how the Meeting seems to have got (much against my own worst expectations). But if things are not as simple as the general assumption that 'the club is not talking to the Trust' then i do feel that they have a responsibility to say as much very clearly.
Also if they have a line of communication to ask questions of the club (and a very senior and respected one at that), then give the club, and the individuals involved, the respect of going through that channel first and only go away from it if you are not happy that RM is properly answering your questions. Otherwise, the Trust risks alienating a potential friend and giving the club the impression that it will only deal with the club on its terms.
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
I am happy to correct 'members of the cohort' to 'a member of the cohort'. Where did I link the liargate reference to the Valley Party cohort? I agree that was a wider group responding to it and was a separate paragraph - my link to the VP cohort was the G21 and the Trust meeting.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
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.
Rant over.
very well said although I don't feel you can point the finger at all the main players in the VP campaign with regard RD selling up or holding a witch-hunt
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!
Not interested in his personal affairs so I worded my point badly. I have previous posts on the unrealistic aspirations of supporters and what owners owe to supporters. Let me try again.
I am comparing a regular owner where it is quite transparent what he is taking out of the club and how much his own interests are served rather than the club's. Fans can moan or do what they will, nothing will change. What we will know is whether the owner is in it to make a quick killing or as a football philanthropic.
All I am asking for is information from the owner to establish whether he is philanthropic or a football industry investor. Only because I can then make sense of what I see happening and why I am supporting the club and avoid unrealistic expectations, that's all.
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
I am happy to correct 'members of the cohort' to 'a member of the cohort'. Where did I link the liargate reference to the Valley Party cohort? I agree that was a wider group responding to it and was a separate paragraph - my link to the VP cohort was the G21 and the Trust meeting.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
You refer to "the unrest" in the following sentence to "the lynching" so I think it's a reasonable interpretation, but fair enough. We can all have our views and will. Where I draw the line is with Tommy's assertion that they are "the facts as they are" because they are not facts. Just someone's opinion.
You seem to be saying that RD shouldn't be expected to speak to people who have previously served on the board or are currently involved in dialogue with RM because of something that you now concede only Steve Dixon among that cohort has said. People like Steve Clarke, Craig Norris and Richard Hunt have a professional background and are quite capable of entering into a rational and reasonable dialogue with Duchatelet - as they did with Richard Murray and Martin Simons with productive consequences all those years ago.
I doubt if Steve Dixon would be interested in speaking to RD, but why would his view preclude the others - because he was involved with them in a successful campaign to get back to The Valley 25 years ago? Bit of a stretch, I suggest. Equally, what right do they have to constrain Steve Dixon from expressing his perfectly genuine opinion and which is evidently shared by at least some others present at the meeting from outside the Valley Party group?
I've stayed out of this as I feel almost terminally disillusioned with almost everything Charlton, but kudos to the trust for holding the meeting (which I missed) and just letting people get stuff of their chest face-to-face. Whatever else I think, it's valuable and necessary.
One simple thing I'd like to suggest, though. The club are doing their usual Twitter stunt of trying to get #footballforafiver trending on Monday teatime.
It could be useful if Twitter users used that hashtag to post a few polite messages for RD and KM outlining why you're unhappy, and asking for dialogue with the trust. None of this "Belgians out" crap, just simple, polite explanations - links to some of the blog posts of recent weeks, that kind of thing.
I'm sure the advisors sent to bother the comms team will be watching (as they're probably reading this - hello!!!) , so it could be a decent way to get the message over the sea to Liege.
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
I am happy to correct 'members of the cohort' to 'a member of the cohort'. Where did I link the liargate reference to the Valley Party cohort? I agree that was a wider group responding to it and was a separate paragraph - my link to the VP cohort was the G21 and the Trust meeting.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
You refer to "the unrest" in the following sentence to "the lynching" so I think it's a reasonable interpretation, but fair enough. We can all have our views and will. Where I draw the line is with Tommy's assertion that they are "the facts as they are" because they are not facts. Just someone's opinion.
You seem to be saying that RD shouldn't be expected to speak to people who have previously served on the board or are currently involved in dialogue with RM because of something that you now concede only Steve Dixon among that cohort has said. People like Steve Clarke, Craig Norris and Richard Hunt have a professional background and are quite capable of entering into a rational and reasonable dialogue with Duchatelet - as they did with Richard Murray and Martin Simons with productive consequences all those years ago.
I doubt if Steve Dixon would be interested in speaking to RD, but why would his view preclude the others - because he was involved with them in a successful campaign to get back to The Valley 25 years ago? Bit of a stretch, I suggest. Equally, what right do they have to constrain Steve Dixon from expressing his perfectly genuine opinion and which is evidently shared by at least some others present at the meeting from outside the Valley Party group?
Rick - we'll probably go around in circles on this one so my final word.
Where did I say Steve Dixon should be restrained? I made the comment that his expressed view was destructive to any attempt at dialogue but did not suggest that he should be gagged.
I stand by the facts that the G21 and the majority of activists in setting up the meeting on Wednesday were linked to the VP.
If I were Roland then I would not particularly welcome dialogue with that group based on the tactics they have used - this being adversarial rather than collaborative. You may say 'we've tried that' - but the G21 was launched before he'd hardly got his feet under the table.
I am not pro network or RD or anything other than pro Charlton Athletic Football Club - and if you could be bothered (probably not worth it - really) to search my previous comments over the past 14 months or so on this topic you will find that I have been non-judgmental. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with the tactics currently being adopted.
I've stayed out of this as I feel almost terminally disillusioned with almost everything Charlton, but kudos to the trust for holding the meeting (which I missed) and just letting people get stuff of their chest face-to-face. Whatever else I think, it's valuable and necessary.
One simple thing I'd like to suggest, though. The club are doing their usual Twitter stunt of trying to get #footballforafiver trending on Monday teatime.
It could be useful if Twitter users used that hashtag to post a few polite messages for RD and KM outlining why you're unhappy, and asking for dialogue with the trust. None of this "Belgians out" crap, just simple, polite explanations - links to some of the blog posts of recent weeks, that kind of thing.
I'm sure the advisors sent to bother the comms team will be watching (as they're probably reading this - hello!!!) , so it could be a decent way to get the message over the sea to Liege.
I've stayed out of this as I feel almost terminally disillusioned with almost everything Charlton, but kudos to the trust for holding the meeting (which I missed) and just letting people get stuff of their chest face-to-face. Whatever else I think, it's valuable and necessary.
One simple thing I'd like to suggest, though. The club are doing their usual Twitter stunt of trying to get #footballforafiver trending on Monday teatime.
It could be useful if Twitter users used that hashtag to post a few polite messages for RD and KM outlining why you're unhappy, and asking for dialogue with the trust. None of this "Belgians out" crap, just simple, polite explanations - links to some of the blog posts of recent weeks, that kind of thing.
I'm sure the advisors sent to bother the comms team will be watching (as they're probably reading this - hello!!!) , so it could be a decent way to get the message over the sea to Liege.
Hi @InspectorSands - not to pick you up, but only as an example, because I think this is a good example of where there appears to be a lack of clarity: when you say, 'a few polite messages for RD and KM outlining why you're unhappy, and asking for dialogue with the trust', should that not read 'a few polite messages for RD and KM outlining why you're unhappy, and asking for dialogue with the trust - in addition to the dialogue that the trust is already having with Richard Murray'?
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
I am happy to correct 'members of the cohort' to 'a member of the cohort'. Where did I link the liargate reference to the Valley Party cohort? I agree that was a wider group responding to it and was a separate paragraph - my link to the VP cohort was the G21 and the Trust meeting.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
You refer to "the unrest" in the following sentence to "the lynching" so I think it's a reasonable interpretation, but fair enough. We can all have our views and will. Where I draw the line is with Tommy's assertion that they are "the facts as they are" because they are not facts. Just someone's opinion.
You seem to be saying that RD shouldn't be expected to speak to people who have previously served on the board or are currently involved in dialogue with RM because of something that you now concede only Steve Dixon among that cohort has said. People like Steve Clarke, Craig Norris and Richard Hunt have a professional background and are quite capable of entering into a rational and reasonable dialogue with Duchatelet - as they did with Richard Murray and Martin Simons with productive consequences all those years ago.
I doubt if Steve Dixon would be interested in speaking to RD, but why would his view preclude the others - because he was involved with them in a successful campaign to get back to The Valley 25 years ago? Bit of a stretch, I suggest. Equally, what right do they have to constrain Steve Dixon from expressing his perfectly genuine opinion and which is evidently shared by at least some others present at the meeting from outside the Valley Party group?
Rick - we'll probably go around in circles on this one so my final word.
Where did I say Steve Dixon should be restrained? I made the comment that his expressed view was destructive to any attempt at dialogue but did not suggest that he should be gagged.
I stand by the facts that the G21 and the majority of activists in setting up the meeting on Wednesday were linked to the VP.
If I were Roland then I would not particularly welcome dialogue with that group based on the tactics they have used - this being adversarial rather than collaborative. You may say 'we've tried that' - but the G21 was launched before he'd hardly got his feet under the table.
I am not pro network or RD or anything other than pro Charlton Athletic Football Club - and if you could be bothered (probably not worth it - really) to search my previous comments over the past 14 months or so on this topic you will find that I have been non-judgmental. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with the tactics currently being adopted.
"the majority of activists in setting up the meeting on Wednesday were linked to the VP"
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
Not like you to be so defensive Airman. A justifiable post from BobMunro, which was trying to suggest that a lot of the anti RD noises are coming and being directly orchestrated by ex VP members or activists.
Watching the video of Wednesdays meeting tends to support those observations.
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
I am happy to correct 'members of the cohort' to 'a member of the cohort'. Where did I link the liargate reference to the Valley Party cohort? I agree that was a wider group responding to it and was a separate paragraph - my link to the VP cohort was the G21 and the Trust meeting.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
You refer to "the unrest" in the following sentence to "the lynching" so I think it's a reasonable interpretation, but fair enough. We can all have our views and will. Where I draw the line is with Tommy's assertion that they are "the facts as they are" because they are not facts. Just someone's opinion.
You seem to be saying that RD shouldn't be expected to speak to people who have previously served on the board or are currently involved in dialogue with RM because of something that you now concede only Steve Dixon among that cohort has said. People like Steve Clarke, Craig Norris and Richard Hunt have a professional background and are quite capable of entering into a rational and reasonable dialogue with Duchatelet - as they did with Richard Murray and Martin Simons with productive consequences all those years ago.
I doubt if Steve Dixon would be interested in speaking to RD, but why would his view preclude the others - because he was involved with them in a successful campaign to get back to The Valley 25 years ago? Bit of a stretch, I suggest. Equally, what right do they have to constrain Steve Dixon from expressing his perfectly genuine opinion and which is evidently shared by at least some others present at the meeting from outside the Valley Party group?
Rick - we'll probably go around in circles on this one so my final word.
Where did I say Steve Dixon should be restrained? I made the comment that his expressed view was destructive to any attempt at dialogue but did not suggest that he should be gagged.
I stand by the facts that the G21 and the majority of activists in setting up the meeting on Wednesday were linked to the VP.
If I were Roland then I would not particularly welcome dialogue with that group based on the tactics they have used - this being adversarial rather than collaborative. You may say 'we've tried that' - but the G21 was launched before he'd hardly got his feet under the table.
I am not pro network or RD or anything other than pro Charlton Athletic Football Club - and if you could be bothered (probably not worth it - really) to search my previous comments over the past 14 months or so on this topic you will find that I have been non-judgmental. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with the tactics currently being adopted.
Adversarial? The G21 statement was one about engagement. That is all it turned out to be as well, a statement. Things have now developed since those times.
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
I am happy to correct 'members of the cohort' to 'a member of the cohort'. Where did I link the liargate reference to the Valley Party cohort? I agree that was a wider group responding to it and was a separate paragraph - my link to the VP cohort was the G21 and the Trust meeting.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
You refer to "the unrest" in the following sentence to "the lynching" so I think it's a reasonable interpretation, but fair enough. We can all have our views and will. Where I draw the line is with Tommy's assertion that they are "the facts as they are" because they are not facts. Just someone's opinion.
You seem to be saying that RD shouldn't be expected to speak to people who have previously served on the board or are currently involved in dialogue with RM because of something that you now concede only Steve Dixon among that cohort has said. People like Steve Clarke, Craig Norris and Richard Hunt have a professional background and are quite capable of entering into a rational and reasonable dialogue with Duchatelet - as they did with Richard Murray and Martin Simons with productive consequences all those years ago.
I doubt if Steve Dixon would be interested in speaking to RD, but why would his view preclude the others - because he was involved with them in a successful campaign to get back to The Valley 25 years ago? Bit of a stretch, I suggest. Equally, what right do they have to constrain Steve Dixon from expressing his perfectly genuine opinion and which is evidently shared by at least some others present at the meeting from outside the Valley Party group?
Rick - we'll probably go around in circles on this one so my final word.
Where did I say Steve Dixon should be restrained? I made the comment that his expressed view was destructive to any attempt at dialogue but did not suggest that he should be gagged.
I stand by the facts that the G21 and the majority of activists in setting up the meeting on Wednesday were linked to the VP.
If I were Roland then I would not particularly welcome dialogue with that group based on the tactics they have used - this being adversarial rather than collaborative. You may say 'we've tried that' - but the G21 was launched before he'd hardly got his feet under the table.
I am not pro network or RD or anything other than pro Charlton Athletic Football Club - and if you could be bothered (probably not worth it - really) to search my previous comments over the past 14 months or so on this topic you will find that I have been non-judgmental. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with the tactics currently being adopted.
Adversarial? The G21 statement was one about engagement. That is all it turned out to be as well, a statement. Things have now developed since those times.
Fairly sure the question of a season ticket boycott can be described as adversarial.
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
I am happy to correct 'members of the cohort' to 'a member of the cohort'. Where did I link the liargate reference to the Valley Party cohort? I agree that was a wider group responding to it and was a separate paragraph - my link to the VP cohort was the G21 and the Trust meeting.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
You refer to "the unrest" in the following sentence to "the lynching" so I think it's a reasonable interpretation, but fair enough. We can all have our views and will. Where I draw the line is with Tommy's assertion that they are "the facts as they are" because they are not facts. Just someone's opinion.
You seem to be saying that RD shouldn't be expected to speak to people who have previously served on the board or are currently involved in dialogue with RM because of something that you now concede only Steve Dixon among that cohort has said. People like Steve Clarke, Craig Norris and Richard Hunt have a professional background and are quite capable of entering into a rational and reasonable dialogue with Duchatelet - as they did with Richard Murray and Martin Simons with productive consequences all those years ago.
I doubt if Steve Dixon would be interested in speaking to RD, but why would his view preclude the others - because he was involved with them in a successful campaign to get back to The Valley 25 years ago? Bit of a stretch, I suggest. Equally, what right do they have to constrain Steve Dixon from expressing his perfectly genuine opinion and which is evidently shared by at least some others present at the meeting from outside the Valley Party group?
Rick - we'll probably go around in circles on this one so my final word.
Where did I say Steve Dixon should be restrained? I made the comment that his expressed view was destructive to any attempt at dialogue but did not suggest that he should be gagged.
I stand by the facts that the G21 and the majority of activists in setting up the meeting on Wednesday were linked to the VP.
If I were Roland then I would not particularly welcome dialogue with that group based on the tactics they have used - this being adversarial rather than collaborative. You may say 'we've tried that' - but the G21 was launched before he'd hardly got his feet under the table.
I am not pro network or RD or anything other than pro Charlton Athletic Football Club - and if you could be bothered (probably not worth it - really) to search my previous comments over the past 14 months or so on this topic you will find that I have been non-judgmental. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with the tactics currently being adopted.
Adversarial? The G21 statement was one about engagement. That is all it turned out to be as well, a statement. Things have now developed since those times.
Fairly sure the question of a season ticket boycott can be described as adversarial.
Which formed no part of any plan or even discussion among the G21, as corrected before. So a completely bogus point.
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
I am happy to correct 'members of the cohort' to 'a member of the cohort'. Where did I link the liargate reference to the Valley Party cohort? I agree that was a wider group responding to it and was a separate paragraph - my link to the VP cohort was the G21 and the Trust meeting.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
You refer to "the unrest" in the following sentence to "the lynching" so I think it's a reasonable interpretation, but fair enough. We can all have our views and will. Where I draw the line is with Tommy's assertion that they are "the facts as they are" because they are not facts. Just someone's opinion.
You seem to be saying that RD shouldn't be expected to speak to people who have previously served on the board or are currently involved in dialogue with RM because of something that you now concede only Steve Dixon among that cohort has said. People like Steve Clarke, Craig Norris and Richard Hunt have a professional background and are quite capable of entering into a rational and reasonable dialogue with Duchatelet - as they did with Richard Murray and Martin Simons with productive consequences all those years ago.
I doubt if Steve Dixon would be interested in speaking to RD, but why would his view preclude the others - because he was involved with them in a successful campaign to get back to The Valley 25 years ago? Bit of a stretch, I suggest. Equally, what right do they have to constrain Steve Dixon from expressing his perfectly genuine opinion and which is evidently shared by at least some others present at the meeting from outside the Valley Party group?
Rick - we'll probably go around in circles on this one so my final word.
Where did I say Steve Dixon should be restrained? I made the comment that his expressed view was destructive to any attempt at dialogue but did not suggest that he should be gagged.
I stand by the facts that the G21 and the majority of activists in setting up the meeting on Wednesday were linked to the VP.
If I were Roland then I would not particularly welcome dialogue with that group based on the tactics they have used - this being adversarial rather than collaborative. You may say 'we've tried that' - but the G21 was launched before he'd hardly got his feet under the table.
I am not pro network or RD or anything other than pro Charlton Athletic Football Club - and if you could be bothered (probably not worth it - really) to search my previous comments over the past 14 months or so on this topic you will find that I have been non-judgmental. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with the tactics currently being adopted.
Adversarial? The G21 statement was one about engagement. That is all it turned out to be as well, a statement. Things have now developed since those times.
Fairly sure the question of a season ticket boycott can be described as adversarial.
Which formed no part of any plan or even discussion among the G21, as corrected before. So a completely bogus point.
I wasn't talking about last years situation.
The recent discussions about hitting the owner financially via action like a ST boycott have been discussed here in the last month or so.
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
I am happy to correct 'members of the cohort' to 'a member of the cohort'. Where did I link the liargate reference to the Valley Party cohort? I agree that was a wider group responding to it and was a separate paragraph - my link to the VP cohort was the G21 and the Trust meeting.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
You refer to "the unrest" in the following sentence to "the lynching" so I think it's a reasonable interpretation, but fair enough. We can all have our views and will. Where I draw the line is with Tommy's assertion that they are "the facts as they are" because they are not facts. Just someone's opinion.
You seem to be saying that RD shouldn't be expected to speak to people who have previously served on the board or are currently involved in dialogue with RM because of something that you now concede only Steve Dixon among that cohort has said. People like Steve Clarke, Craig Norris and Richard Hunt have a professional background and are quite capable of entering into a rational and reasonable dialogue with Duchatelet - as they did with Richard Murray and Martin Simons with productive consequences all those years ago.
I doubt if Steve Dixon would be interested in speaking to RD, but why would his view preclude the others - because he was involved with them in a successful campaign to get back to The Valley 25 years ago? Bit of a stretch, I suggest. Equally, what right do they have to constrain Steve Dixon from expressing his perfectly genuine opinion and which is evidently shared by at least some others present at the meeting from outside the Valley Party group?
Rick - we'll probably go around in circles on this one so my final word.
Where did I say Steve Dixon should be restrained? I made the comment that his expressed view was destructive to any attempt at dialogue but did not suggest that he should be gagged.
I stand by the facts that the G21 and the majority of activists in setting up the meeting on Wednesday were linked to the VP.
If I were Roland then I would not particularly welcome dialogue with that group based on the tactics they have used - this being adversarial rather than collaborative. You may say 'we've tried that' - but the G21 was launched before he'd hardly got his feet under the table.
I am not pro network or RD or anything other than pro Charlton Athletic Football Club - and if you could be bothered (probably not worth it - really) to search my previous comments over the past 14 months or so on this topic you will find that I have been non-judgmental. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with the tactics currently being adopted.
Adversarial? The G21 statement was one about engagement. That is all it turned out to be as well, a statement. Things have now developed since those times.
Fairly sure the question of a season ticket boycott can be described as adversarial.
Which formed no part of any plan or even discussion among the G21, as corrected before. So a completely bogus point.
But it was YOU who started a thread advocating a season ticket boycott.
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
I am happy to correct 'members of the cohort' to 'a member of the cohort'. Where did I link the liargate reference to the Valley Party cohort? I agree that was a wider group responding to it and was a separate paragraph - my link to the VP cohort was the G21 and the Trust meeting.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
You refer to "the unrest" in the following sentence to "the lynching" so I think it's a reasonable interpretation, but fair enough. We can all have our views and will. Where I draw the line is with Tommy's assertion that they are "the facts as they are" because they are not facts. Just someone's opinion.
You seem to be saying that RD shouldn't be expected to speak to people who have previously served on the board or are currently involved in dialogue with RM because of something that you now concede only Steve Dixon among that cohort has said. People like Steve Clarke, Craig Norris and Richard Hunt have a professional background and are quite capable of entering into a rational and reasonable dialogue with Duchatelet - as they did with Richard Murray and Martin Simons with productive consequences all those years ago.
I doubt if Steve Dixon would be interested in speaking to RD, but why would his view preclude the others - because he was involved with them in a successful campaign to get back to The Valley 25 years ago? Bit of a stretch, I suggest. Equally, what right do they have to constrain Steve Dixon from expressing his perfectly genuine opinion and which is evidently shared by at least some others present at the meeting from outside the Valley Party group?
Rick - we'll probably go around in circles on this one so my final word.
Where did I say Steve Dixon should be restrained? I made the comment that his expressed view was destructive to any attempt at dialogue but did not suggest that he should be gagged.
I stand by the facts that the G21 and the majority of activists in setting up the meeting on Wednesday were linked to the VP.
If I were Roland then I would not particularly welcome dialogue with that group based on the tactics they have used - this being adversarial rather than collaborative. You may say 'we've tried that' - but the G21 was launched before he'd hardly got his feet under the table.
I am not pro network or RD or anything other than pro Charlton Athletic Football Club - and if you could be bothered (probably not worth it - really) to search my previous comments over the past 14 months or so on this topic you will find that I have been non-judgmental. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with the tactics currently being adopted.
Adversarial? The G21 statement was one about engagement. That is all it turned out to be as well, a statement. Things have now developed since those times.
Fairly sure the question of a season ticket boycott can be described as adversarial.
Which formed no part of any plan or even discussion among the G21, as corrected before. So a completely bogus point.
I wasn't talking about last years situation.
The recent discussions about hitting the owner financially via action like a ST boycott have been discussed here in the last month or so.
You responded to a post about the G21 statement, which was last March. Season ticket boycotts form no part of any platform put forward by the trust, VOTV or any other organised group as far as I'm aware. So what is the relevance?
Richard Murray knew about the meeting. He understood perfectly well that the purpose was to allow all strands of fan opinion to have their say, and to try and sort out the common ground among the fans. Unlike some people on here, Richard Murray isn't afraid of people expressing views he doesn't agree with, or that he thinks are ridiculous. he also acknowledges that their views might be less ridiculous if the club were more open. That has always been his practice since he bought Charlton. Now his role is far more limited because he no longer has equity in the club. He sees his role as described above, but the effectiveness of that role is in the hands of KM and RD. He talks to the Trust on a regular basis as I said above because he feels that we are capable of understanding business realities in football. He also talks to people not in the Trust whom he also respects in the same way, Henry Irving being an example. Finally he regularly reads this and other forums.
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
I am happy to correct 'members of the cohort' to 'a member of the cohort'. Where did I link the liargate reference to the Valley Party cohort? I agree that was a wider group responding to it and was a separate paragraph - my link to the VP cohort was the G21 and the Trust meeting.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
You refer to "the unrest" in the following sentence to "the lynching" so I think it's a reasonable interpretation, but fair enough. We can all have our views and will. Where I draw the line is with Tommy's assertion that they are "the facts as they are" because they are not facts. Just someone's opinion.
You seem to be saying that RD shouldn't be expected to speak to people who have previously served on the board or are currently involved in dialogue with RM because of something that you now concede only Steve Dixon among that cohort has said. People like Steve Clarke, Craig Norris and Richard Hunt have a professional background and are quite capable of entering into a rational and reasonable dialogue with Duchatelet - as they did with Richard Murray and Martin Simons with productive consequences all those years ago.
I doubt if Steve Dixon would be interested in speaking to RD, but why would his view preclude the others - because he was involved with them in a successful campaign to get back to The Valley 25 years ago? Bit of a stretch, I suggest. Equally, what right do they have to constrain Steve Dixon from expressing his perfectly genuine opinion and which is evidently shared by at least some others present at the meeting from outside the Valley Party group?
Rick - we'll probably go around in circles on this one so my final word.
Where did I say Steve Dixon should be restrained? I made the comment that his expressed view was destructive to any attempt at dialogue but did not suggest that he should be gagged.
I stand by the facts that the G21 and the majority of activists in setting up the meeting on Wednesday were linked to the VP.
If I were Roland then I would not particularly welcome dialogue with that group based on the tactics they have used - this being adversarial rather than collaborative. You may say 'we've tried that' - but the G21 was launched before he'd hardly got his feet under the table.
I am not pro network or RD or anything other than pro Charlton Athletic Football Club - and if you could be bothered (probably not worth it - really) to search my previous comments over the past 14 months or so on this topic you will find that I have been non-judgmental. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with the tactics currently being adopted.
Adversarial? The G21 statement was one about engagement. That is all it turned out to be as well, a statement. Things have now developed since those times.
Fairly sure the question of a season ticket boycott can be described as adversarial.
Which formed no part of any plan or even discussion among the G21, as corrected before. So a completely bogus point.
But it was YOU who started a thread advocating a season ticket boycott.
Or are you going to deny that?
I suggested a "strike" not a boycott, to force a discussion, i.e. that people did not renew until we got some clarification in the immediate aftermath of Powell's sacking. I asked for other people's views and it was clear it wasn't a popular idea. In any event, it was discounted as an idea within hours and not considered by the group that met in the pub two days later. So nothing to do with the G21 at all.
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.
Again, your facts are nothing of the sort. How many of the Valley Party people have called for Duchatelet to sell up and go? Steve Dixon ... who else? Is he not entitled to hold that view? If there are others, name them and show where and when they have said this.
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
Not like you to be so defensive Airman. A justifiable post from BobMunro, which was trying to suggest that a lot of the anti RD noises are coming and being directly orchestrated by ex VP members or activists.
Watching the video of Wednesdays meeting tends to support those observations.
Hmm. Steve Dixon expressed dismay at the model and that if under RD we would be little more than the London franchise of a European network then he'd prefer him to sell up. Rick Everitt evidenced that things were going wrong but clearly stated that he's not ruling out it still working under RD. There were stronger statements from the floor and people who had nothing to do with the Valley Party.
The overwhelming view of the meeting was that a rift between supporters and the club is growing and the board is doing little to even acknowledge it, let alone understand or reverse it.
I think there's a lot of prejudgement going on here, particularly it seems from people who weren't there on Wednesday and who want to believe this is all a whipped up frenzy. People attended in numbers across a wide range of supporters and histories because of their personal concern, not because ex-VP activists lobbied them to do so. It's insulting to suggest otherwise, in my view.
Comments
So much of the pro-RD rhetoric is built on fantasy. Sorry if it's dull, but again the facts don't fit your analysis. Two former Valley Party people are playing a leading role as members of the trust board - Steve Clarke and Richard Hunt. Has either of them called for RD to sell up and go? Where and when?
How were former Valley Party members leading the unrest around KM's handling of the Peeters/Luzon debacle? There was a large, spontaneous and hostile response to the club's behaviour across all social media. If you or bobmunro can show otherwise, please do, but otherwise don't insult the intelligence of the majority of fans.
but the refusal to accept the help/advice of others to help them is what really grates on me because I for one would prefer 10k of season ticket holders and 15k average gates than 7k of season ticket holders and 11k gates which is where we are heading
To all those saying he has a lot more to lose than us , I beg to differ, then in numbers and hard cash yes he may lose a lot more than us but it is all relative
If someone earns £1m a year and drops £100k on a bet and someone on £10k a year drops £5k on a bet who's loss will be felt most
That is without taking the emotional attachment of what we have all given to this club , plus the time spent following it and how much it truly means to us , which no monetary equivalent is equatable to
And I don't understand the mechanics of finance but he may be offsetting losses against tax implications so the financial losses aren't black and white
A load of old waffle but my feelings on the stubbornness not to use the experience of some of the old guard to our clubs advantage doesn't sit pretty with me
But it is not really about the holding of the meeting (he might like the fact that the meeting was held, who knows, lots of people who are 'pro-RD' supported the meeting and were incredibly impressed by how well it was run- myself included), but it is about the reporting of both the meeting and what are supposed to be the Trust's views in general: many people appear to think that the club has refused to talk the Trust and, by extension, the fans. This has been oft repeated on this forum and the slant of the news story was very much that.
Now it seems that this is just not true and nobody from the Trust felt that they should make a strong statement that this is not the case. That i find to be rather corrosive.
OK, I don't necessarily agree that there are clearly questions the RM cannot answer on KM or RD's behalf, but, even assuming that you are right, then surely you have to ask RM the question first and, if he says that he cannot answer it, or if he does not answer it to your satisfaction, then you ask him to refer you up the chain. You do not arbitrarily decide that his remit as the spokesman for the club is worthless and simply demand to talk to the owner above his head!
(I am assuming that he never has said that there are things that he can answer, because I have never been told as much. Certainly I cannot recall seeing where he was asked these questions and his answers were seen to be unsatisfactory.)
As I say, I hugely respect the Trust and the people involved and I was incredibly impressed with how the Meeting seems to have got (much against my own worst expectations). But if things are not as simple as the general assumption that 'the club is not talking to the Trust' then i do feel that they have a responsibility to say as much very clearly.
Also if they have a line of communication to ask questions of the club (and a very senior and respected one at that), then give the club, and the individuals involved, the respect of going through that channel first and only go away from it if you are not happy that RM is properly answering your questions. Otherwise, the Trust risks alienating a potential friend and giving the club the impression that it will only deal with the club on its terms.
I'm happy to stand by every word as 'my view' - you have a different view, Rick, with I respect but disagree with. Selectively or incorrectly quoting opponents of your view won't change that.
I am comparing a regular owner where it is quite transparent what he is taking out of the club and how much his own interests are served rather than the club's. Fans can moan or do what they will, nothing will change. What we will know is whether the owner is in it to make a quick killing or as a football philanthropic.
All I am asking for is information from the owner to establish whether he is philanthropic or a football industry investor. Only because I can then make sense of what I see happening and why I am supporting the club and avoid unrealistic expectations, that's all.
You seem to be saying that RD shouldn't be expected to speak to people who have previously served on the board or are currently involved in dialogue with RM because of something that you now concede only Steve Dixon among that cohort has said. People like Steve Clarke, Craig Norris and Richard Hunt have a professional background and are quite capable of entering into a rational and reasonable dialogue with Duchatelet - as they did with Richard Murray and Martin Simons with productive consequences all those years ago.
I doubt if Steve Dixon would be interested in speaking to RD, but why would his view preclude the others - because he was involved with them in a successful campaign to get back to The Valley 25 years ago? Bit of a stretch, I suggest. Equally, what right do they have to constrain Steve Dixon from expressing his perfectly genuine opinion and which is evidently shared by at least some others present at the meeting from outside the Valley Party group?
One simple thing I'd like to suggest, though. The club are doing their usual Twitter stunt of trying to get #footballforafiver trending on Monday teatime.
It could be useful if Twitter users used that hashtag to post a few polite messages for RD and KM outlining why you're unhappy, and asking for dialogue with the trust. None of this "Belgians out" crap, just simple, polite explanations - links to some of the blog posts of recent weeks, that kind of thing.
I'm sure the advisors sent to bother the comms team will be watching (as they're probably reading this - hello!!!) , so it could be a decent way to get the message over the sea to Liege.
Just a thought, anyway. Good luck.
Superbly put together posts, very thought provoking in the way they are constructed
Lots to now think about
Where did I say Steve Dixon should be restrained? I made the comment that his expressed view was destructive to any attempt at dialogue but did not suggest that he should be gagged.
I stand by the facts that the G21 and the majority of activists in setting up the meeting on Wednesday were linked to the VP.
If I were Roland then I would not particularly welcome dialogue with that group based on the tactics they have used - this being adversarial rather than collaborative. You may say 'we've tried that' - but the G21 was launched before he'd hardly got his feet under the table.
I am not pro network or RD or anything other than pro Charlton Athletic Football Club - and if you could be bothered (probably not worth it - really) to search my previous comments over the past 14 months or so on this topic you will find that I have been non-judgmental. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with the tactics currently being adopted.
well that's just simply untrue.
Watching the video of Wednesdays meeting tends to support those observations.
This from the trust
"Richard Murray – I believe Roland to be a good long-term owner"
I'm guessing this isn't "built on fantasy"?
Was this common knowledge that I missed?
Why the knicker wetting about lack of communication with The Board then?
The recent discussions about hitting the owner financially via action like a ST boycott have been discussed here in the last month or so.
Or are you going to deny that?
Richard Murray knew about the meeting. He understood perfectly well that the purpose was to allow all strands of fan opinion to have their say, and to try and sort out the common ground among the fans. Unlike some people on here, Richard Murray isn't afraid of people expressing views he doesn't agree with, or that he thinks are ridiculous. he also acknowledges that their views might be less ridiculous if the club were more open. That has always been his practice since he bought Charlton. Now his role is far more limited because he no longer has equity in the club. He sees his role as described above, but the effectiveness of that role is in the hands of KM and RD. He talks to the Trust on a regular basis as I said above because he feels that we are capable of understanding business realities in football. He also talks to people not in the Trust whom he also respects in the same way, Henry Irving being an example. Finally he regularly reads this and other forums.
The overwhelming view of the meeting was that a rift between supporters and the club is growing and the board is doing little to even acknowledge it, let alone understand or reverse it.
I think there's a lot of prejudgement going on here, particularly it seems from people who weren't there on Wednesday and who want to believe this is all a whipped up frenzy. People attended in numbers across a wide range of supporters and histories because of their personal concern, not because ex-VP activists lobbied them to do so. It's insulting to suggest otherwise, in my view.