For me, I found it all a bit sickly and false. If KM is serious about wanting to answer our questions and concerns then surely she must attend the open meeting on Wednesday!? Assuming that the meeting will be well managed and the fans 'behave' and respect the views of everyone in attendance (including any club representatives) then KM should be there. I will be there. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she DID attend. Like others, I do feel that she has zero 'power' at the club which reduces her credibility as a CEO, but I have seen how hard she works on numerous occasions in aiming to give the fans the best match day experience so I am convinced that she is doing the best she can with her 'hands tie behind her back' somewhat. I see her more as the Stadium Manager or Customer Service Manager rather than CEO.
Unfortunately the chance of this happening is slim. That was proved by the train incident and how many people in the days after who congratulated the guy and thought nothing was wrong with that kind of manner of conversation.
Surely tomorrow is about fans coming together to discuss the way our club is currently being run, and what we could do to improve it. If KM is present, then some fans will take it on themselves to turn the evening into a fest of loud voices and finger wagging aimed constantly at KM and we won't get anywhere and. It will be a waste of a great opportunity for fans to discuss our club.
You are missing my point. Katrien intimates that she reads every one, and the lad's email stood out, so she responded with her version of a full detailed plan in the interview didn't she? So your list ought to read Swansea, AFC Wimbledon, Portsmouth and Charlton Athletic. I interpret it to possibly mean that after having read every one of the supporters who are worried emails, the lads email must've summed up her perception of fans angst. So her video response killed many birds with one stone. The bit that is more interesting to me than how many CEO's can dance on the head of a pin, is the content of her responses. I don't find them convincing at all, and it is a pity that Q and A is not the same as dialogue.
You are missing my point. Katrien intimates that she reads every one, and the lad's email stood out, so she responded with her version of a full detailed plan in the interview didn't she? So your list ought to read Swansea, AFC Wimbledon, Portsmouth and Charlton Athletic. I interpret it to possibly mean that after having read every one of the supporters who are worried emails, the lads email must've summed up her perception of fans angst. So her video response killed many birds with one stone. The bit that is more interesting to me than how many CEO's can dance on the head of a pin, is the content of her responses. I don't find them convincing at all, and it is a pity that Q and A is not the same as dialogue.
Well, we know she's a fast reader, look how quickly she got through all of the applications for the managerial post.
The club communicates via the Valley Review, it's web site, and the local press.
Tomorrow night there is a QA with Valley Gold and the CEO and a Director are meeting fans at the Bromley event.
It is not the lack of opportunity to ask questions, it is that some of you do not like and will never be happy with the answers. I think they go something like this:-
Yes, he wants to build a strong Championship side. He may pump a bob or two into a player if we are very close to getting promoted, but otherwise not.
He will sell players if a good offer comes in.
Yes he will move players within the network if he can see a financial advantage to the network. If it benefits the network we all benefit indirectly.
The stadium and pitch have been greatly improved, as have the catering and the provision for a half time pint. Easily dismissed as 'yes but.....' but it was urgently required.
Plans for a much improved training ground moving forward.
Speaking of forward. Old and lonely forward who wanted to leave replaced by rwo young potential stars costing 3.5 mil.
We have put in place a young manager who has won the premier league in Belgium who likes his teams to play direct football without lumping it up front. We did interview others and he was the best candidate.
We want to bring in another forward but he would have to better than we have and affordable.
Our aim this year is to consolidate in the Championship and look to improve the squad again in the summer. We have only been in charge a year, we have made one or two mistakes but give us a chance please.
Pretty much how I feel about it at the moment. Meetings such as Bromley Addicks and VIP give fans the chance to ask the questions but it's just they don't like the answers they are getting. So there is communication but not the sort some want.
The club communicates via the Valley Review, it's web site, and the local press.
Tomorrow night there is a QA with Valley Gold and the CEO and a Director are meeting fans at the Bromley event.
It is not the lack of opportunity to ask questions, it is that some of you do not like and will never be happy with the answers. I think they go something like this:-
Yes, he wants to build a strong Championship side. He may pump a bob or two into a player if we are very close to getting promoted, but otherwise not.
He will sell players if a good offer comes in.
Yes he will move players within the network if he can see a financial advantage to the network. If it benefits the network we all benefit indirectly.
The stadium and pitch have been greatly improved, as have the catering and the provision for a half time pint. Easily dismissed as 'yes but.....' but it was urgently required.
Plans for a much improved training ground moving forward.
Speaking of forward. Old and lonely forward who wanted to leave replaced by rwo young potential stars costing 3.5 mil.
We have put in place a young manager who has won the premier league in Belgium who likes his teams to play direct football without lumping it up front. We did interview others and he was the best candidate.
We want to bring in another forward but he would have to better than we have and affordable.
Our aim this year is to consolidate in the Championship and look to improve the squad again in the summer. We have only been in charge a year, we have made one or two mistakes but give us a chance please.
Pretty much how I feel about it at the moment. Meetings such as Bromley Addicks and VIP give fans the chance to ask the questions but it's just they don't like the answers they are getting. So there is communication but not the sort some want.
As a matter of interest, Large, would it be acceptable to you if you had evidence that Roland intervenes in team selection based on advice from computer analysts?
This to me is the nub of the problem. If you believe that doesn't and never has happened then fair enough, but what if it has and is? Is that OK?
The club communicates via the Valley Review, it's web site, and the local press.
Tomorrow night there is a QA with Valley Gold and the CEO and a Director are meeting fans at the Bromley event.
It is not the lack of opportunity to ask questions, it is that some of you do not like and will never be happy with the answers. I think they go something like this:-
Yes, he wants to build a strong Championship side. He may pump a bob or two into a player if we are very close to getting promoted, but otherwise not.
He will sell players if a good offer comes in.
Yes he will move players within the network if he can see a financial advantage to the network. If it benefits the network we all benefit indirectly.
The stadium and pitch have been greatly improved, as have the catering and the provision for a half time pint. Easily dismissed as 'yes but.....' but it was urgently required.
Plans for a much improved training ground moving forward.
Speaking of forward. Old and lonely forward who wanted to leave replaced by rwo young potential stars costing 3.5 mil.
We have put in place a young manager who has won the premier league in Belgium who likes his teams to play direct football without lumping it up front. We did interview others and he was the best candidate.
We want to bring in another forward but he would have to better than we have and affordable.
Our aim this year is to consolidate in the Championship and look to improve the squad again in the summer. We have only been in charge a year, we have made one or two mistakes but give us a chance please.
Pretty much how I feel about it at the moment. Meetings such as Bromley Addicks and VIP give fans the chance to ask the questions but it's just they don't like the answers they are getting. So there is communication but not the sort some want.
As a matter of interest, Large, would it be acceptable to you if you had evidence that Roland intervenes in team selection based on advice from computer analysts?
This to me is the nub of the problem. If you believe that doesn't and never has happened then fair enough, but what if it has and is? Is that OK?
Where is this evidence? I'm sure many, like me, have never seen it.
The club communicates via the Valley Review, it's web site, and the local press.
Tomorrow night there is a QA with Valley Gold and the CEO and a Director are meeting fans at the Bromley event.
It is not the lack of opportunity to ask questions, it is that some of you do not like and will never be happy with the answers. I think they go something like this:-
Yes, he wants to build a strong Championship side. He may pump a bob or two into a player if we are very close to getting promoted, but otherwise not.
He will sell players if a good offer comes in.
Yes he will move players within the network if he can see a financial advantage to the network. If it benefits the network we all benefit indirectly.
The stadium and pitch have been greatly improved, as have the catering and the provision for a half time pint. Easily dismissed as 'yes but.....' but it was urgently required.
Plans for a much improved training ground moving forward.
Speaking of forward. Old and lonely forward who wanted to leave replaced by rwo young potential stars costing 3.5 mil.
We have put in place a young manager who has won the premier league in Belgium who likes his teams to play direct football without lumping it up front. We did interview others and he was the best candidate.
We want to bring in another forward but he would have to better than we have and affordable.
Our aim this year is to consolidate in the Championship and look to improve the squad again in the summer. We have only been in charge a year, we have made one or two mistakes but give us a chance please.
Pretty much how I feel about it at the moment. Meetings such as Bromley Addicks and VIP give fans the chance to ask the questions but it's just they don't like the answers they are getting. So there is communication but not the sort some want.
As a matter of interest, Large, would it be acceptable to you if you had evidence that Roland intervenes in team selection based on advice from computer analysts?
This to me is the nub of the problem. If you believe that doesn't and never has happened then fair enough, but what if it has and is? Is that OK?
Abramovich does it all the time. Mourhino doesn't listen much these days though.
The club communicates via the Valley Review, it's web site, and the local press.
Tomorrow night there is a QA with Valley Gold and the CEO and a Director are meeting fans at the Bromley event.
It is not the lack of opportunity to ask questions, it is that some of you do not like and will never be happy with the answers. I think they go something like this:-
Yes, he wants to build a strong Championship side. He may pump a bob or two into a player if we are very close to getting promoted, but otherwise not.
He will sell players if a good offer comes in.
Yes he will move players within the network if he can see a financial advantage to the network. If it benefits the network we all benefit indirectly.
The stadium and pitch have been greatly improved, as have the catering and the provision for a half time pint. Easily dismissed as 'yes but.....' but it was urgently required.
Plans for a much improved training ground moving forward.
Speaking of forward. Old and lonely forward who wanted to leave replaced by rwo young potential stars costing 3.5 mil.
We have put in place a young manager who has won the premier league in Belgium who likes his teams to play direct football without lumping it up front. We did interview others and he was the best candidate.
We want to bring in another forward but he would have to better than we have and affordable.
Our aim this year is to consolidate in the Championship and look to improve the squad again in the summer. We have only been in charge a year, we have made one or two mistakes but give us a chance please.
Pretty much how I feel about it at the moment. Meetings such as Bromley Addicks and VIP give fans the chance to ask the questions but it's just they don't like the answers they are getting. So there is communication but not the sort some want.
As a matter of interest, Large, would it be acceptable to you if you had evidence that Roland intervenes in team selection based on advice from computer analysts?
This to me is the nub of the problem. If you believe that doesn't and never has happened then fair enough, but what if it has and is? Is that OK?
I'm not arguing with you Airman but, genuinely as a matter of interest, do you know (or have a strong suspicion) as to what the nature of the computer analysis is and specifically what recommendations are made to the manager and/or RD? There's all manner of statistical analysis that has been used over the years (e.g. specific player's work rate, area covered and pass completion during games) that is used by managers (increasingly so). So, what is it about this particular use of computer geekery that concerns you? Or is it really that Roland (not the manager) is de facto picking the team?
Without defending KM or the club, and without endorsing the PR exercise of talking to a 15 year old, it occurs to me to ask the question if it is something about the Trust that is the issue?
KM and RM held a Q&A at The Valley at the fun day; they are both attending the VIP meeting (which I'm not sure they are obligated to) KM is appearing at Bromley on 12th March and she is attending a similar meeting in Ashford on 26th February.
Is it possible that she has an issue with a member (or members) of the Trust? Has the Trust (or one of it's members) done something, maybe inadvertently, that has made them an undesirable partner?
Despite the fact that the Trust has many members I suspect that it is run by a much smaller group of fans than will be in attendance at any of the three meetings mentioned above.
I would also point out that some of the people that speak 'on behalf of the Trust' give the impression that their 'voice' means much more than another fan's. I don't think, despite the various surveys, that the Trust can, realistically, claim to speak for all of it's members. Probably not even most of them. The voice of the Trust is, in my limited opinion, that of the board members that meet regularly.
I'm not against the Trust, and I have no problems with it 'fighting the fan's corner' but I keep hearing that it is the biggest democratic group of Charlton fans and even though this is true I don't think it speaks for them all - even if the opinions are the same. Thus I'm not trolling or looking for a fight, I'm just floating the idea that maybe KM has a problem with the Trust that we don't know about?
I don't like how the club is being run, and I am still a little angry about the fiasco around Luzon's appointment, but I'm willing to give KM a month to see how she performs in the next three fan meetings before I judge her any further.
The club communicates via the Valley Review, it's web site, and the local press.
Tomorrow night there is a QA with Valley Gold and the CEO and a Director are meeting fans at the Bromley event.
It is not the lack of opportunity to ask questions, it is that some of you do not like and will never be happy with the answers. I think they go something like this:-
Yes, he wants to build a strong Championship side. He may pump a bob or two into a player if we are very close to getting promoted, but otherwise not.
He will sell players if a good offer comes in.
Yes he will move players within the network if he can see a financial advantage to the network. If it benefits the network we all benefit indirectly.
The stadium and pitch have been greatly improved, as have the catering and the provision for a half time pint. Easily dismissed as 'yes but.....' but it was urgently required.
Plans for a much improved training ground moving forward.
Speaking of forward. Old and lonely forward who wanted to leave replaced by rwo young potential stars costing 3.5 mil.
We have put in place a young manager who has won the premier league in Belgium who likes his teams to play direct football without lumping it up front. We did interview others and he was the best candidate.
We want to bring in another forward but he would have to better than we have and affordable.
Our aim this year is to consolidate in the Championship and look to improve the squad again in the summer. We have only been in charge a year, we have made one or two mistakes but give us a chance please.
Pretty much how I feel about it at the moment. Meetings such as Bromley Addicks and VIP give fans the chance to ask the questions but it's just they don't like the answers they are getting. So there is communication but not the sort some want.
As a matter of interest, Large, would it be acceptable to you if you had evidence that Roland intervenes in team selection based on advice from computer analysts?
This to me is the nub of the problem. If you believe that doesn't and never has happened then fair enough, but what if it has and is? Is that OK?
I'm not arguing with you Airman but, genuinely as a matter of interest, do you know (or have a strong suspicion) as to what the nature of the computer analysis is and specifically what recommendations are made to the manager and/or RD? There's all manner of statistical analysis that has been used over the years (e.g. specific player's work rate, area covered and pass completion during games) that is used by managers (increasingly so). So, what is it about this particular use of computer geekery that concerns you? Or is it really that Roland (not the manager) is de facto picking the team?
I'm not against the use of mathematical analysis at all, but as with all statistics it needs to be used in context and applied to the real world by people who recognise its limitations. The most public statement about this approach is in the Alex Dyer interview with the South London Press at the end of last season, although I accept that he applied it specifically to recruitment.
I'm told it went further and extended, for example, to RD wanting Nego played at centre-half.
I can't show you the evidence, but I have very good sources about what went on as do numerous other people.
There is no evidence that RD has the experience or background knowledge to make successful interventions based on the information supplied by the computer analysts. Given he does not attend matches or visit England more than very occasionally it seems unlikely that he is in a position to bring that to the table.
I fully accept that the suggestion he does and has done this remains too bizarre for some people to accept, particularly on the say-so of third parties. So what I am asking is whether it would be acceptable to those inclined to defend his position if in fact he did, i.e. does their support for RD depend on it being untrue?
This thread for me highlights that there is a consensus of concern and anger but an inability to agree on why.
Duchatelet's lack of meaningful communication is a major contributor to this but I would have thought that the primary function of the forthcoming meeting should be to attempt to achieve some sort of unanimity into exactly what we do want.
I am fully aware that I probably should not be expressing an opinion on a meeting I am unable to attend.
So did Richard Murray never ever offer Curbs analysis on his view of the squad, team performance, tactics or possible transfer targets?
I'd expect a Chairman and financier of every Club to show some interest in the above. Whatever way they got their information.
I think Curbs put Richard Murray in his place pretty early on about team selection and Richard respected that.
There's really no comparison at all with what I am talking about, both in scale and detail. Murray was actually pretty good at delegation and letting managers manage, he just made some bad appointments, whereas even Roland's biggest fan couldn't pretend they are his strengths.
On the issue of emails, an organisation will probably respond if it is felt necessary for PR or good customer relations. Every organisation that believes there is a positive in having good relations with customers/voters/supporters will have a dedicated customer services department. If you write to the CEO it's unlikely anyone other than the customer services department will respond.
I would guess it's more likely that CAFC doesn't have a customer services department whose job is to respond appropriately or refer to KM only those which require her personal attention. No way KM could spend her time sorting out the abusive, the enquiring, the complaining and make an appropriate response. If the same questions keep coming in you have a stock answer, which probably is no better than not responding if it's just fobbing off.
So we know why we don't get responses, it's because the club does not believe good PR with supporters is worth paying for, and no facility exists to allow responses to everyone.
Alternatively, to avoid having to run a customer services department you stem 100s of emails asking the same question or making the same complaint by having a forum to respond and disseminate answers to supporters' concerns - simples. KM then only has to respond to emails asking for a date or telling us what flowers she wants.
You are making two different points, I think. One is that Katrien has a problem with certain individuals within the Trust. As far as I am aware she has only personally encountered 4 of the current 9 board members. One of those 4 is Heather McKinlay who did the big interview with her for Trust News back in September. I think that interview reflected a decent dialogue between two successful professionals who treated each other with mutual respect. Katrien has had ample opportunity to say via Richard Murray that she would be more comfortable meeting with, say, Heather, than other Trust board members but she has resolutely refused to do that. She simply tells him that it she does not want to "favour" one group over another. I also understand that she does not spend any specific time on boards like this, and I don't blame her, but she relies on people to feed her back the "gist" which then opens up another possibility which I'm sure you can work out for yourself.
Your second point is that we represent "only" a certain number, and even then many of them may not agree with what Board members say in public. That's an unwinable argument to do with the deficiencies in how democracy works. I can only repeat that we are the third biggest Trust in the division, and our membership has increased by 10% since our mid Jan statement . We have been careful to ensure that tomorrow isn't a Trust meeting, and I believe that only one Trust Board member is scheduled to speak. What more can we do to address this question? Well there is a vacant chair on the board, if you are interested ...or you could write an article for the website expressing what you see as a counter position- although I can assure you that even within the current board there are plenty of those!
Confession time .. If I were the owner of a professional football club, I would DEFINITELY have a say in team selection and player purchases .. not to say that I would DEMAND to have the final say, but I would have my opinions heard and I would not be using any computer gimmickry .. and I dare say 90% of CLers would say the same .. IF they were being honest
When John Terry got rumbled for shagging the wrong women, I saw him stopping outside the Chelsea training ground and giving free football boots to children, whilst the paparazzi to photos.
There's a load of barracking and name calling about lack of communication and transparency and then as soon (or late if you like) as KM/RD open up a tiny amount those same barrackers slag them off and scorn the communication as empty publicity. Is it any wonder they're reticent? They'd get a fairer trial in Bahrain! Sure the Peeters out/Luzon in episode was p!ss poor but they can't do right for doing wrong. Suck it up people it's Roly's plaything and he can tell us what he likes if he likes. I ain't gonna defend Roly's apparently witless erosion of his Charlton brand/product/however he sees it. As the consumer we get to vote with our feet and wallets. I'm boycotting Tesco cos they f"cked over my home town, I won't spend any money inside the Valley until I'm happier with how things are run. To continue to slag off someone who ain't listening serves no purpose other than to make noise. Maybe it soothes ruffled egos of those consumed by impotent self-righteous indignation and delusion. Until anyone else has something significantly north of £15M stake money and £5-8M per year to keep the doors open why should Roly do anything else than cock a deaf'un to such a rabble? He's running his experiment and we don't have to like it, would we prefer Mick the manc and spanish Tony? Milan Mandaric perhaps? May the saints preserve us!
A patronising damage limitation exercise put out by the club, no more no less. Any politician will tell you, when the shit is splattering into the fan (sic) kiss some babies. This is just KM's baby kissing exercise. Its a bit naive to think anything less. Were we all born yesterday?
I thought the young lad did well, and fair lay to him for putting the Q's across well.
But if they really wanted to be taken seriously, then get a cross section of fans in. say 4-5 and let them ask pertinent and uncomfortable Q's and put the vid on youtube, which would be more revealing and believable.
I learnt nothing watching this vid.
But isn't this exactly what the club are doing by showing the VIP meeting Greenie ?
Fair point Shrew, however I commented on the wisdom and meaning of this charade. I will be interested in the VIP meeting outcome and reports. I understand that Q's will be vetted. If that is the case then surely its already lost its reason for happening. Also it would appear that allegedly the current regime are looked upon as truth economists by many on various forums, so they need to alleviate the distrust that they have created amongst the fans.
Confession time .. If I were the owner of a professional football club, I would DEFINITELY have a say in team selection and player purchases .. not to say that I would DEMAND to have the final say, but I would have my opinions heard and I would not be using any computer gimmickry .. and I dare say 90% of CLers would say the same .. IF they were being honest
Indeed, but would you be a success in that role or would you undermine the club so badly that you'd have to sell for what you could get? :-)
You are making two different points, I think. One is that Katrien has a problem with certain individuals within the Trust. As far as I am aware she has only personally encountered 4 of the current 9 board members. One of those 4 is Heather McKinlay who did the big interview with her for Trust News back in September. I think that interview reflected a decent dialogue between two successful professionals who treated each other with mutual respect. Katrien has had ample opportunity to say via Richard Murray that she would be more comfortable meeting with, say, Heather, than other Trust board members but she has resolutely refused to do that. She simply tells him that it she does not want to "favour" one group over another. I also understand that she does not spend any specific time on boards like this, and I don't blame her, but she relies on people to feed her back the "gist" which then opens up another possibility which I'm sure you can work out for yourself.
Your second point is that we represent "only" a certain number, and even then many of them may not agree with what Board members say in public. That's an unwinable argument to do with the deficiencies in how democracy works. I can only repeat that we are the third biggest Trust in the division, and our membership has increased by 10% since our mid Jan statement . We have been careful to ensure that tomorrow isn't a Trust meeting, and I believe that only one Trust Board member is scheduled to speak. What more can we do to address this question? Well there is a vacant chair on the board, if you are interested ...or you could write an article for the website expressing what you see as a counter position- although I can assure you that even within the current board there are plenty of those!
PA, I wasn't suggesting that KM has an issue with a member of the Trust, just that her refusal to speak to them when she is willing to speak to others (and I'm ignoring a 15 year old) must be for a reason. I wasn't aware of the not wanting to favour one group suggestion, and that could well be the reason. It also links nicely with the other point that I made. I can see why the club would not want to be seen to be working closely with just one group - this is my main point about the size of the Trust. I don't think membership counts for much and the club can get 'the message' (even if it's going to be packaged up as no message at all) to different large groups than a board that represent fans that have given their email address or £5 or both.
I don't think that it helps that minutes of meetings are not released for days after the meeting even when members on here are calling for them - although on thinking about it that might have been the Fans Forum, I can never tell these days. What happens when a small group get a meeting and then are unable to share what has been said is that the other fans tend to feel that it is an exclusive club and the rest of us are excluded. Richard Murray has, often, shared things with a room of fans and asked for it to be kept secret - including something about Andy Gray shortly after he joined at an official AGM that bloggers mentioned several times but said that they couldn't tell. It was like being in a Primary school playground. Although I'm getting off topic!
I appreciate that it is a no win situation. Unless the club is doing well (on the field) and the messages coming out are what we want to hear we are going to look for things, and people, to point the finger at.
I also appreciate that it is very easy to do nothing but criticise those that are trying but, through no fault of their own, are failing.
Under those circumstances I, seriously, doubt that I would be able to offer the Trust anything by getting involved, but thanks for asking.
You are making two different points, I think. One is that Katrien has a problem with certain individuals within the Trust. As far as I am aware she has only personally encountered 4 of the current 9 board members. One of those 4 is Heather McKinlay who did the big interview with her for Trust News back in September. I think that interview reflected a decent dialogue between two successful professionals who treated each other with mutual respect. Katrien has had ample opportunity to say via Richard Murray that she would be more comfortable meeting with, say, Heather, than other Trust board members but she has resolutely refused to do that. She simply tells him that it she does not want to "favour" one group over another. I also understand that she does not spend any specific time on boards like this, and I don't blame her, but she relies on people to feed her back the "gist" which then opens up another possibility which I'm sure you can work out for yourself.
Your second point is that we represent "only" a certain number, and even then many of them may not agree with what Board members say in public. That's an unwinable argument to do with the deficiencies in how democracy works. I can only repeat that we are the third biggest Trust in the division, and our membership has increased by 10% since our mid Jan statement . We have been careful to ensure that tomorrow isn't a Trust meeting, and I believe that only one Trust Board member is scheduled to speak. What more can we do to address this question? Well there is a vacant chair on the board, if you are interested ...or you could write an article for the website expressing what you see as a counter position- although I can assure you that even within the current board there are plenty of those!
PA, I wasn't suggesting that KM has an issue with a member of the Trust, just that her refusal to speak to them when she is willing to speak to others (and I'm ignoring a 15 year old) must be for a reason. I wasn't aware of the not wanting to favour one group suggestion, and that could well be the reason. It also links nicely with the other point that I made. I can see why the club would not want to be seen to be working closely with just one group - this is my main point about the size of the Trust. I don't think membership counts for much and the club can get 'the message' (even if it's going to be packaged up as no message at all) to different large groups than a board that represent fans that have given their email address or £5 or both.
I don't think that it helps that minutes of meetings are not released for days after the meeting even when members on here are calling for them - although on thinking about it that might have been the Fans Forum, I can never tell these days. What happens when a small group get a meeting and then are unable to share what has been said is that the other fans tend to feel that it is an exclusive club and the rest of us are excluded. Richard Murray has, often, shared things with a room of fans and asked for it to be kept secret - including something about Andy Gray shortly after he joined at an official AGM that bloggers mentioned several times but said that they couldn't tell. It was like being in a Primary school playground. Although I'm getting off topic!
I appreciate that it is a no win situation. Unless the club is doing well (on the field) and the messages coming out are what we want to hear we are going to look for things, and people, to point the finger at.
I also appreciate that it is very easy to do nothing but criticise those that are trying but, through no fault of their own, are failing.
Under those circumstances I, seriously, doubt that I would be able to offer the Trust anything by getting involved, but thanks for asking.
But it's not just the trust.
If you were a young and inexperienced chief executive, virtually all the experience had been stripped out of the business before you arrived, and you had the chance to pick the brains of someone who was chief exec before you for 11 years, privately and in confidence, would you a) take the opportunity to learn what you could, b) feel confident there was nothing useful you could learn or c) insist on dealing only through an intermediary, even when you knew the former chief exec had information you urgently needed?
Comments
Surely tomorrow is about fans coming together to discuss the way our club is currently being run, and what we could do to improve it. If KM is present, then some fans will take it on themselves to turn the evening into a fest of loud voices and finger wagging aimed constantly at KM and we won't get anywhere and. It will be a waste of a great opportunity for fans to discuss our club.
So your list ought to read Swansea, AFC Wimbledon, Portsmouth and Charlton Athletic.
I interpret it to possibly mean that after having read every one of the supporters who are worried emails, the lads email must've summed up her perception of fans angst. So her video response killed many birds with one stone.
The bit that is more interesting to me than how many CEO's can dance on the head of a pin, is the content of her responses. I don't find them convincing at all, and it is a pity that Q and A is not the same as dialogue.
This to me is the nub of the problem. If you believe that doesn't and never has happened then fair enough, but what if it has and is? Is that OK?
There's all manner of statistical analysis that has been used over the years (e.g. specific player's work rate, area covered and pass completion during games) that is used by managers (increasingly so). So, what is it about this particular use of computer geekery that concerns you?
Or is it really that Roland (not the manager) is de facto picking the team?
KM and RM held a Q&A at The Valley at the fun day; they are both attending the VIP meeting (which I'm not sure they are obligated to) KM is appearing at Bromley on 12th March and she is attending a similar meeting in Ashford on 26th February.
Is it possible that she has an issue with a member (or members) of the Trust? Has the Trust (or one of it's members) done something, maybe inadvertently, that has made them an undesirable partner?
Despite the fact that the Trust has many members I suspect that it is run by a much smaller group of fans than will be in attendance at any of the three meetings mentioned above.
I would also point out that some of the people that speak 'on behalf of the Trust' give the impression that their 'voice' means much more than another fan's. I don't think, despite the various surveys, that the Trust can, realistically, claim to speak for all of it's members. Probably not even most of them. The voice of the Trust is, in my limited opinion, that of the board members that meet regularly.
I'm not against the Trust, and I have no problems with it 'fighting the fan's corner' but I keep hearing that it is the biggest democratic group of Charlton fans and even though this is true I don't think it speaks for them all - even if the opinions are the same. Thus I'm not trolling or looking for a fight, I'm just floating the idea that maybe KM has a problem with the Trust that we don't know about?
I don't like how the club is being run, and I am still a little angry about the fiasco around Luzon's appointment, but I'm willing to give KM a month to see how she performs in the next three fan meetings before I judge her any further.
https://us.v-cdn.net/5000498/uploads/FileUpload/d1/d05ca55d07d0cd619c09b49b62a6d1.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/5000498/uploads/FileUpload/7a/550699a36f14a30e6050005016a4a5.jpg
I'm told it went further and extended, for example, to RD wanting Nego played at centre-half.
I can't show you the evidence, but I have very good sources about what went on as do numerous other people.
There is no evidence that RD has the experience or background knowledge to make successful interventions based on the information supplied by the computer analysts. Given he does not attend matches or visit England more than very occasionally it seems unlikely that he is in a position to bring that to the table.
I fully accept that the suggestion he does and has done this remains too bizarre for some people to accept, particularly on the say-so of third parties. So what I am asking is whether it would be acceptable to those inclined to defend his position if in fact he did, i.e. does their support for RD depend on it being untrue?
Duchatelet's lack of meaningful communication is a major contributor to this but I would have thought that the primary function of the forthcoming meeting should be to attempt to achieve some sort of unanimity into exactly what we do want.
I am fully aware that I probably should not be expressing an opinion on a meeting I am unable to attend.
I'd expect a Chairman and financier of every Club to show some interest in the above. Whatever way they got their information.
There's really no comparison at all with what I am talking about, both in scale and detail. Murray was actually pretty good at delegation and letting managers manage, he just made some bad appointments, whereas even Roland's biggest fan couldn't pretend they are his strengths.
So conversely, you could say Powell, Riga and Vignjević have put RD in his place by not playing Nego at Centre Half.
I would guess it's more likely that CAFC doesn't have a customer services department whose job is to respond appropriately or refer to KM only those which require her personal attention. No way KM could spend her time sorting out the abusive, the enquiring, the complaining and make an appropriate response. If the same questions keep coming in you have a stock answer, which probably is no better than not responding if it's just fobbing off.
So we know why we don't get responses, it's because the club does not believe good PR with supporters is worth paying for, and no facility exists to allow responses to everyone.
Alternatively, to avoid having to run a customer services department you stem 100s of emails asking the same question or making the same complaint by having a forum to respond and disseminate answers to supporters' concerns - simples. KM then only has to respond to emails asking for a date or telling us what flowers she wants.
You are making two different points, I think. One is that Katrien has a problem with certain individuals within the Trust. As far as I am aware she has only personally encountered 4 of the current 9 board members. One of those 4 is Heather McKinlay who did the big interview with her for Trust News back in September. I think that interview reflected a decent dialogue between two successful professionals who treated each other with mutual respect. Katrien has had ample opportunity to say via Richard Murray that she would be more comfortable meeting with, say, Heather, than other Trust board members but she has resolutely refused to do that. She simply tells him that it she does not want to "favour" one group over another. I also understand that she does not spend any specific time on boards like this, and I don't blame her, but she relies on people to feed her back the "gist" which then opens up another possibility which I'm sure you can work out for yourself.
Your second point is that we represent "only" a certain number, and even then many of them may not agree with what Board members say in public. That's an unwinable argument to do with the deficiencies in how democracy works. I can only repeat that we are the third biggest Trust in the division, and our membership has increased by 10% since our mid Jan statement . We have been careful to ensure that tomorrow isn't a Trust meeting, and I believe that only one Trust Board member is scheduled to speak. What more can we do to address this question? Well there is a vacant chair on the board, if you are interested ...or you could write an article for the website expressing what you see as a counter position- although I can assure you that even within the current board there are plenty of those!
This is the same. A token PR stunt.
They'd get a fairer trial in Bahrain!
Sure the Peeters out/Luzon in episode was p!ss poor but they can't do right for doing wrong.
Suck it up people it's Roly's plaything and he can tell us what he likes if he likes.
I ain't gonna defend Roly's apparently witless erosion of his Charlton brand/product/however he sees it.
As the consumer we get to vote with our feet and wallets.
I'm boycotting Tesco cos they f"cked over my home town, I won't spend any money inside the Valley until I'm happier with how things are run.
To continue to slag off someone who ain't listening serves no purpose other than to make noise. Maybe it soothes ruffled egos of those consumed by impotent self-righteous indignation and delusion.
Until anyone else has something significantly north of £15M stake money and £5-8M per year to keep the doors open why should Roly do anything else than cock a deaf'un to such a rabble? He's running his experiment and we don't have to like it, would we prefer Mick the manc and spanish Tony? Milan Mandaric perhaps? May the saints preserve us!
I will be interested in the VIP meeting outcome and reports.
I understand that Q's will be vetted. If that is the case then surely its already lost its reason for happening.
Also it would appear that allegedly the current regime are looked upon as truth economists by many on various forums, so they need to alleviate the distrust that they have created amongst the fans.
I don't think that it helps that minutes of meetings are not released for days after the meeting even when members on here are calling for them - although on thinking about it that might have been the Fans Forum, I can never tell these days. What happens when a small group get a meeting and then are unable to share what has been said is that the other fans tend to feel that it is an exclusive club and the rest of us are excluded. Richard Murray has, often, shared things with a room of fans and asked for it to be kept secret - including something about Andy Gray shortly after he joined at an official AGM that bloggers mentioned several times but said that they couldn't tell. It was like being in a Primary school playground. Although I'm getting off topic!
I appreciate that it is a no win situation. Unless the club is doing well (on the field) and the messages coming out are what we want to hear we are going to look for things, and people, to point the finger at.
I also appreciate that it is very easy to do nothing but criticise those that are trying but, through no fault of their own, are failing.
Under those circumstances I, seriously, doubt that I would be able to offer the Trust anything by getting involved, but thanks for asking.
If you were a young and inexperienced chief executive, virtually all the experience had been stripped out of the business before you arrived, and you had the chance to pick the brains of someone who was chief exec before you for 11 years, privately and in confidence, would you a) take the opportunity to learn what you could, b) feel confident there was nothing useful you could learn or c) insist on dealing only through an intermediary, even when you knew the former chief exec had information you urgently needed?
Curbs told RM to do his own job and leave him to do his. There may have been some more colourful language used.
So RM did that.
And we never sold White for £2m (lot of money now, even more then).
So maybe RM should have over ridden that decision on financial grounds?
Or he was right to let his chosen manager manage?