I like Chris Powell and apart from Saturday I wish him well . I would love him one day to manage in the Premiership and even Internationally for England. I too loved the genuine passion he had for Charlton . I have particularly enjoyed Weegie's articles in both VOTV and the Trust Newsletter previously. I had hoped that she had established a good rapport with Katrien as that interview was excellent .
So I too want to read the whole article , but I am uneasy . Having an ex manager telling war stories about the promotion campaign in 2011/12 and the 9th place finish a year later is one thing , but being critical of the current regime is another in my view .I understand the SLP has an interview with him tomorrow as well . Maybe that will not be an exclusive after all.
Are we as a group of fans trying to build bridges or do we want to burn them ? I think we know the pressures that Powell was under , so there isn't anything new .
I will applaud Powell but be supporting Charlton Saturday much in the way I did when Curbs returned with West Ham.
Good scoop for the Trust News. I was offered a Chris Powell interview yesterday - by a third party and not instigated by Chris - but I demurred as I knew it would look like a spoiler. I find it hard to understand how people imagine that an interview with the opposition manager will conceivably undermine the team and current manager on the day it is published. The players still here all know what went on. It doesn't affect the ones who weren't or Luzon.
What I hope it will do is nail once and for all the lie that Duchatelet was only expressing the normal views of a owner when the team is losing and he has provided resources for players who are not in the team. It begs question of Katrien Meire's comments at the VIP meeting that need to be asked.
The Trust should seek out the truth, not compromise it to get in a room with people who have shown them and the people they represent no respect. A relationship based on lies is no relationship at all.
Fair enough AB but this is what I expect to see ...and hopefully always will ...from VOTV.
AFKA covers my view very succinctly: "The outcome of the public meeting last week was that the room voted unanimously to aim for further dialogue with the club rather than to go on the offensive. This in the next home game doesn't support that agreed approach of the room imo."
Indeed, and I would certainly have run the interview, but fair play to Weegie for going and getting it. I'd guess we have better links to Chris, but I didn't see him being candid at this point. Knowing him, it's about being truthful with Charlton fans rather than any mind games around the match or destructive purpose.
If I have a criticism of the Trust, it is that they should have left the content of the piece to come out on Saturday, but I do get why they have felt the need to tease it.
I agree its controversial and that wasn't our original intention, but once we had the interview it was clear we had to print it. Not everyone will agree of course.
I don't agree this will affect the match on Saturday in anyway. Nor do I agree we have sensationalised it headline wise other than it being a big deal that its Chris Powell.
The Trust has for nearly three years relentlessly pursued dialogue, including countless lines by myself in TNT, and been accused of not being critical enough. Even carrying the Katrien article. At the same time we are independent and KM has says she respects that and I take her word for that.
Its not an easy read, but sometimes we as an organisation have to face tough decisions about what we put out on our channels and this was one of those occasions.
I would suggest anyone disgruntled with the interview form the TNT into several paper aeroplanes & on the 3rd minute hurl them in Razil's direction - he used to be Row Z-ish, centre block of the East Stand....
Whilst I am, on the whole , a Trust supporter, I too feel that this is not the time to publish said interview.
Would it not have been more respectful to wait until, say Tuesday evening's game when the SCP "bandwagon" has rolled on from The Valley ?
Whilst I never for a minute doubt Chris' integrity & fully believed the "rumour" that intervention by our new at the time) owner had undermined his management of the team, I feel we have moved on since then , to use a favourite CL cliché.
I thought it was universally agreed that JR had not bowed to any pressure from RD .
And do we have any reason to believe that BP's choice of players on matchdays was influenced by the owner?
So, although players from the network have joined us since SCP's departure, there appears to be no evidence to show that RD has influenced the actual selection of the team since he left.
What I'm trying to say ( and very badly) is that I believe lessons HAVE been learned and continue to, albeit at a slower pace & in a less discernible way than some fans might wish.
So, to resurrect the reasons behind our former manager's departure at this, possibly crucial time in the fragile relationship between Club & customers, when some bridges are tentatively being built, is questionable IMO.
In no way am I suggesting that what happened last season be swept under the carpet.
But there is a time & place for the undeniable facts to be thrust under the noses of both the faithful, the waverers & the first timers, of which there will be many on Saturday. And, at a time when performances on the pitch are improving, surely the focus should be totally on the team.
Razil, do you think the article will help you get more dialogue with the club than what you have had in the past?
This is a genuine question by the way
The CEO has already stated that she is the outing for communication with our owner, and is pretty stern in the fact there's not much she is going to or will say from him. What the Trust is printing here is not made up BS to cause havoc, it's spoken from a very trustworthy man who believes us fan's should know what went on - I know a lot of it but it will be nice to read it from the man himself. A lot of other fans did not know of it and it may change their perceptions, why would they want to invest money into something they don't feel attached/a real reason to, especially if the enjoyment levels are dwindling.
My only concern over this article is whether I'll be able to get a copy on saturday. 5000 issues for a crowd of 25000 ? Any chance of a reprint for those who for whatever reason can't to The Valley early ?
Not sure i really understand the criticism, this will not effect the result Saturday and as a trust member from the almost start this is exactly what i want them doing.
The trust is to represent the fans and the fans deserve to hear from a club legend who clearly still cares for us.
If the interview contains inconveniant truths for some who wish to paper over to make support for the current owner a little easier, then that is too bad IMO.
Yes the trust wants more dialogue with the club but even if the club did agree to talks, that is meaningless if it has to come on certain terms, like not publishing an interview like this.
My only question is how long until it goes online as i can't get to the Valley on Saturday?
Very divisive publishing this interview on Saturday but then I shouldn't be surprised, the trust & VotV has its own agenda. I'd expect more propaganda from both when Yann comes to town on May 2nd
Razil, do you think the article will help you get more dialogue with the club than what you have had in the past?
This is a genuine question by the way
The CEO has already stated that she is the outing for communication with our owner, and is pretty stern in the fact there's not much she is going to or will say from him. What the Trust is printing here is not made up BS to cause havoc, it's spoken from a very trustworthy man who believes us fan's should know what went on - I know a lot of it but it will be nice to read it from the man himself. A lot of other fans did not know of it and it may change their perceptions, why would they want to invest money into something they don't feel attached/a real reason to, especially if the enjoyment levels are dwindling.
I am not questioning the content of the interview here. I have just asked the head of the trust if he thinks that the article will aid the quest for more dialogue.
I am neutral here. I applaud the interview and to be honest very impressed that they have managed to get someone as high profile as CP. On the other hand though, I fear that could be like waving a red flag at the bull. I hope not though.
Remember Chris Powell is first and foremost a professional football manager who will want Huddersfield to win tomorrow. He is not a disillusioned fan who wants his version of Charlton back . He said a couple of weeks ago he had 'moved on'. Why can't we?
As someone who is very media savvy he will understand the importance of Charlton not being able to bring a capacity crowd into play and will want to create a distraction . I do not condemn him for this as he does not have our interests at heart tomorrow.
I think the view that he has spilt the beans now to put the record straight for the fans is either slightly naïve or deliberately provocative.
The Trust want meaningful dialogue with the owner. Now you have totally undermined the owner. The Trust should be building bridges to enable a discourse, it has used dynamite to destroy that bridge. Good work!!
I agree.
The Trust seems to want combat not conversation. As I said before, for one of the 4 options in Q3 (?) of the recent survey to be about getting rid of the owner it seems an agenda had already been written.
There are on here criticisms about the timing which I disagree with (the criticism not the timing) but having got the interview what are the Trust supposed to do with it? Suppress it's publication? It is not about the trust going on the offensive, there is no hidden agenda, it is about getting something out in the open, if people see it as adversarial then it reflects on the content of the interview not the context. What is all that about shooting the messenger? If the interview shines a light on the circumstances of Powell's sacking, and the approach of the owner to the make up of the team, then what's wrong with that? Surely Mr Duchatelet would actively want such information out there in order to build a better future, as the fans would know what style of club 'we' aspire to be in the future.
The Trust want meaningful dialogue with the owner. Now you have totally undermined the owner. The Trust should be building bridges to enable a discourse, it has used dynamite to destroy that bridge. Good work!!
I agree.
The Trust seems to want combat not conversation. As I said before, for one of the 4 options in Q3 (?) of the recent survey to be about getting rid of the owner it seems an agenda had already been written.
I am afraid that is incorrect, and despite being the liaison officer for the trust, from the very start you seem unable to accept the assurances that have been given by the trust that this is not the position.!. I also feel that to ask a question on a survey about the ownership is so devisive, that RD would recoil in horror seems rather absurd to myself. Obviously if we had a constructive dialogue with the club, it must be down to myself that we have failed on this level. ? Strange that we had dialogue even with the previous owners, ( and they were hardly known for there communications with fans were they ?). So, PL54, Do you believe me..........?
Remember Chris Powell is first and foremost a professional football manager who will want Huddersfield to win tomorrow. He is not a disillusioned fan who wants his version of Charlton back . He said a couple of weeks ago he had 'moved on'. Why can't we?
As someone who is very media savvy he will understand the importance of Charlton not being able to bring a capacity crowd into play and will want to create a distraction . I do not condemn him for this as he does not have our interests at heart tomorrow.
I think the view that he has spilt the beans now to put the record straight for the fans is either slightly naïve or deliberately provocative.
Complete and utter nonsense that. Of course he will want his team to win. The idea of him doing an interview with the supporters' trust in the belief that it will have any impact on the behaviour of the crowd - half of whom are visitors anyway and won't know or care who Roland is - is fanciful. What percentage will even have read it before kick-off?
Yes, just seen that. Can't be the exact same interview, though, as I can promise you Cawley wasn't there when I met with CP. Guess it just confirms that Powell was ready to talk.
suspect this interview will only make the club put the shutters up even more, bit of a siege mentality from within and I doubt it'll help relations one bit.
Do I think anything we do would get us dialogue with the owner, no I don't.
In general terms I don't think this impacts the situation negatively. Nor is intentional or some Conspiracy. If we had an agenda why publish all the articles we have previously?
KM has said she respects our independence and I believe her.
Would I rather the Trust was able to print positive stuff, interviews with the Board, and had a strategic partnership, yes I would.
He will know that this weekend there will be inevitable talk about why he left Charlton so this is the perfect time for him to get his side of the story in the public domain.
I'm looking forward to reading the TNT interview. I doubt it will change the minds of those that were happy to see Powell leave. Those that post on here are entrenched in their position which is fine but the article will no doubt trigger the same circular debates on here and elsewhere.
But if it and the SLP interview are picked up by other media it might bring the story to more fans of Charlton and other clubs.
I'm glad the Trust is running the story. " Let justice be done though the heavens fall" as the saying goes but actions have consequences
I think what some, myself included, find odd is the swing from saying almost nothing critical or controversial about the previous regime (defended at the time by survey results saying fans wanted constructive dialogue) or this current regime to the current position.
I have to disagree with Ken that the Trust has communication with the old regime. It didn't have the ear of Slater or Jimenez. It did speak to the bi-polar Bradshaw.
I'm glad the Trust has moved away from its obsession with non-committal, non-criticism, surveys, internet hits as outcomes and reliance on the very notional 5000 "network" to being more critical and campaigning. That was always one of my criticisms along with its need to have a finger in every pie, now also seemingly dropped along with its distaste and distancing from the G21.
But as AFKA points out this does seem to contradict what was voted on in at the public meeting and doesn't seem to leave many doors open to for the dialogue as I infer CAFC999 suggests.
It is a very fine line to tread if it wants to be both constructively critical and collaborative especially when the other party does not, it seems, want to have an exclusive discussion with the Trust or see it as a body worthy of the position it claims for itself.
So the question is again has this interview helped the Trust to better walk that fine line?
Ben, that might be a valid question for an article, but this is an interview - very different.
I have to disagree albeit I haven't read the interview yet. Article or interview the key content will, I assume, be critical of Roland and possibly Katrien.
I'm not saying that is a good reason not to publish it but it may well have consequences.
Anyway, bring a copy along for the museum archives tomorrow morning. Look forward to seeing you and it then.
Now we know the REAL reason why the Trust news publication is called TNT. This 9th edition was clearly planned for maximum effect all those moons ago when the title was first decided upon, not.
It's out there and if there are no new revelations, I can't see a problem with it. Anyway the SLP are supposed to be running a similar story! However if things don't go our way on the pitch Saturday, Trust board members will need to have those tin hats at the ready as scapegoat will take on a whole new dimension. Let's hope we win for everyone's sake. Well done Weegie and good luck chaps.
The Trust want meaningful dialogue with the owner. Now you have totally undermined the owner. The Trust should be building bridges to enable a discourse, it has used dynamite to destroy that bridge. Good work!!
this with knobs on, can't see Roland calling you anytime soon.
suspect this interview will only make the club put the shutters up even more, bit of a siege mentality from within and I doubt it'll help relations one bit.
Quite possibly but will the club cut off contact with the SLP after they run what I guess will be a similar interview.
They didn't do that when the SLP ran the ALex Dyer interview and my guess is that they will still use the SLP as their main avenue to the press.
Comments
I like Chris Powell and apart from Saturday I wish him well . I would love him one day to manage in the Premiership and even Internationally for England. I too loved the genuine passion he had for Charlton . I have particularly enjoyed Weegie's articles in both VOTV and the Trust Newsletter previously. I had hoped that she had established a good rapport with Katrien as that interview was excellent .
So I too want to read the whole article , but I am uneasy . Having an ex manager telling war stories about the promotion campaign in 2011/12 and the 9th place finish a year later is one thing , but being critical of the current regime is another in my view .I understand the SLP has an interview with him tomorrow as well . Maybe that will not be an exclusive after all.
Are we as a group of fans trying to build bridges or do we want to burn them ? I think we know the pressures that Powell was under , so there isn't anything new .
I will applaud Powell but be supporting Charlton Saturday much in the way I did when Curbs returned with West Ham.
If I have a criticism of the Trust, it is that they should have left the content of the piece to come out on Saturday, but I do get why they have felt the need to tease it.
I don't agree this will affect the match on Saturday in anyway. Nor do I agree we have sensationalised it headline wise other than it being a big deal that its Chris Powell.
The Trust has for nearly three years relentlessly pursued dialogue, including countless lines by myself in TNT, and been accused of not being critical enough. Even carrying the Katrien article. At the same time we are independent and KM has says she respects that and I take her word for that.
Its not an easy read, but sometimes we as an organisation have to face tough decisions about what we put out on our channels and this was one of those occasions.
This is a genuine question by the way
Would it not have been more respectful to wait until, say Tuesday evening's game when the SCP "bandwagon" has rolled on from The Valley ?
Whilst I never for a minute doubt Chris' integrity & fully believed the "rumour" that intervention by our new at the time) owner had undermined his management of the team, I feel we have moved on since then , to use a favourite CL cliché.
I thought it was universally agreed that JR had not bowed to any pressure from RD .
And do we have any reason to believe that BP's choice of players on matchdays was influenced by the owner?
So, although players from the network have joined us since SCP's departure, there appears to be no evidence to show that RD has influenced the actual selection of the team since he left.
What I'm trying to say ( and very badly) is that I believe lessons HAVE been learned and continue to, albeit at a slower pace & in a less discernible way than some fans might wish.
So, to resurrect the reasons behind our former manager's departure at this, possibly crucial time in the fragile relationship between Club & customers, when some bridges are tentatively being built, is questionable IMO.
In no way am I suggesting that what happened last season be swept under the carpet.
But there is a time & place for the undeniable facts to be thrust under the noses of both the faithful, the waverers & the first timers, of which there will be many on Saturday. And, at a time when performances on the pitch are improving, surely the focus should be totally on the team.
How does that song go ?
" Accentuate the positive ...."
The trust is to represent the fans and the fans deserve to hear from a club legend who clearly still cares for us.
If the interview contains inconveniant truths for some who wish to paper over to make support for the current owner a little easier, then that is too bad IMO.
Yes the trust wants more dialogue with the club but even if the club did agree to talks, that is meaningless if it has to come on certain terms, like not publishing an interview like this.
My only question is how long until it goes online as i can't get to the Valley on Saturday?
As im very keen to read it in full.
As someone who is very media savvy he will understand the importance of Charlton not being able to bring a capacity crowd into play and will want to create a distraction . I do not condemn him for this as he does not have our interests at heart tomorrow.
I think the view that he has spilt the beans now to put the record straight for the fans is either slightly naïve or deliberately provocative.
The Trust seems to want combat not conversation. As I said before, for one of the 4 options in Q3 (?) of the recent survey to be about getting rid of the owner it seems an agenda had already been written.
What is all that about shooting the messenger? If the interview shines a light on the circumstances of Powell's sacking, and the approach of the owner to the make up of the team, then what's wrong with that? Surely Mr Duchatelet would actively want such information out there in order to build a better future, as the fans would know what style of club 'we' aspire to be in the future.
Strange that we had dialogue even with the previous owners, ( and they were hardly known for there communications with fans were they ?).
So, PL54, Do you believe me..........?
poor timing running with it in my opinion
In general terms I don't think this impacts the situation negatively. Nor is intentional or some
Conspiracy. If we had an agenda why publish all the articles we have previously?
KM has said she respects our independence and I believe her.
Would I rather the Trust was able to print positive stuff, interviews with the Board, and had a strategic partnership, yes I would.
He will know that this weekend there will be inevitable talk about why he left Charlton so this is the perfect time for him to get his side of the story in the public domain.
I'm looking forward to reading the TNT interview. I doubt it will change the minds of those that were happy to see Powell leave. Those that post on here are entrenched in their position which is fine but the article will no doubt trigger the same circular debates on here and elsewhere.
But if it and the SLP interview are picked up by other media it might bring the story to more fans of Charlton and other clubs.
I'm glad the Trust is running the story. " Let justice be done though the heavens fall" as the saying goes but actions have consequences
I think what some, myself included, find odd is the swing from saying almost nothing critical or controversial about the previous regime (defended at the time by survey results saying fans wanted constructive dialogue) or this current regime to the current position.
I have to disagree with Ken that the Trust has communication with the old regime. It didn't have the ear of Slater or Jimenez. It did speak to the bi-polar Bradshaw.
I'm glad the Trust has moved away from its obsession with non-committal, non-criticism, surveys, internet hits as outcomes and reliance on the very notional 5000 "network" to being more critical and campaigning. That was always one of my criticisms along with its need to have a finger in every pie, now also seemingly dropped along with its distaste and distancing from the G21.
But as AFKA points out this does seem to contradict what was voted on in at the public meeting and doesn't seem to leave many doors open to for the dialogue as I infer CAFC999 suggests.
It is a very fine line to tread if it wants to be both constructively critical and collaborative especially when the other party does not, it seems, want to have an exclusive discussion with the Trust or see it as a body worthy of the position it claims for itself.
So the question is again has this interview helped the Trust to better walk that fine line?
I'm not saying that is a good reason not to publish it but it may well have consequences.
Anyway, bring a copy along for the museum archives tomorrow morning. Look forward to seeing you and it then.
It's out there and if there are no new revelations, I can't see a problem with it. Anyway the SLP are supposed to be running a similar story! However if things don't go our way on the pitch Saturday, Trust board members will need to have those tin hats at the ready as scapegoat will take on a whole new dimension. Let's hope we win for everyone's sake. Well done Weegie and good luck chaps.
They didn't do that when the SLP ran the ALex Dyer interview and my guess is that they will still use the SLP as their main avenue to the press.
Then is there any point in the Trust asking for more dialogue?