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.
Do I think anything we do would get us dialogue with the owner, no I don't.
Then is there any point in the Trust asking for more dialogue?
I've read the SLP this morning and it isn't anything more or less than you'd expect in the circumstances. Powell's return is the story - he goes a bit further than before including re Jimenez and co, but it is balanced and sensibly reported. It's still not the full story. Nobody in their right mind would think it was a basis to withdraw co-operation.
As I've said many times, the club doesn't choose the SLP as their main avenue to the press. It is the only "almost local" newspaper left with a properly staffed sports desk that covers the club in print. The Shopper doesn't go for the same kind of in-depth articles and for similar reasons hasn't built the relationships. The SLP is the only game in town.
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.
Do I think anything we do would get us dialogue with the owner, no I don't.
Then is there any point in the Trust asking for more dialogue?
I've read the SLP this morning and it isn't anything more it less than you'd expect in the circumstances. Powell's return is the story - he goes a bit further than before including re Jimenez and co, but if is balanced and sensibly reported. Nobody in their right mind would think it was a basis to withdraw co-operation.
As I've said many times, the club doesn't choose the SLP as their main avenue to the press. It is the only "almost local" newspaper left with a properly staffed sports desk that covers the club in print. The Shopper doesn't go for the same kind of in-depth articles and for similar reasons hasn't built the relationships. The SLP is the only game in town.
That didn't stop the Spivs falling out with it : - )
The more detail of Duchatalet's bizarre interference with football matters that get into the public domain the better I say. His wrong headed ideas should be exposed to scrutiny, not covered up. He can stand up and defend his network scheme or he can continue to hide behind Katrien Miere's skirts. The trust can ask nicely for dialogue which has gotten them precisely nowhere or they can exert some pressure.
Roland treated Powell with contempt before sacking him, and then exploiting him as a selling point for Saturday's game. Now cast have exploited this to gain their own publicity. Football- bloody hell!
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.
if SCP had come out and said 'oh he's a great and wonderful owner , our disagreements were minimal and i accepted it wasn't going to work and we parted amicably and he'll be brilliant for the future of Charlton"
there'd be plenty of people saying there you go even the Charlton god SCP admits how wonderful our owner is
the fact it's not a pretty message that wil be painted by our crank of an owner doesn't mean the message should be stifled
family club , really , more like joke club unfortunately
If the Trust decided not to release the interview because it would make the current owner look bad then that decision would attract more criticism (and some people will criticise regardless). Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made but this one, on balance, is the right one.
The overwhelming view that I took away from the public meeting is that people just want to know what’s going on at the club, how it’s being run and what the goals are. If the current owner and his representatives are unwilling or unable to provide that information then it must be sought from other sources – almost unarguably the next best source is Chris Powell who, despite his vested interests, is not a liar.
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.
But did you ask him how come he can get his Huddersfield team to beat Millwall, but couldn't get us to?
I haven't got a strong opinion either way about whether or not the Trust should publish the interview. Well apathetic really rather than no strong opinion. I do however believe that it's unlikely to help in attempts to have open dialogue with RD. The Chairman of the trust no less admits that he doesn't expect anything the Trust do will achieve that, and I agree with Henry's comment - why bother trying despite that being the general view expressed at the Woolwich meeting.
For me the Trust, whilst noble in intent, is just another group/faction of supporters and as such I do not see them as a representative group other than expressing the views of their members and indeed the officers, despite having stated aims, a constitution et al. They most certainly do not represent me or indeed the vast majority of supporters. Just looking at figures - the last time I checked there were 1139 members of the trust. How many people if asked would openly say they are strong supporters of Charlton Athletic? It would clearly be a multiple of the average home attendance so at a guess (and probably wildly inaccurate) let's for argument say 4 x the average home attendance. based on that the membership of the trust 'represents' less than 2% of the fan base. 1139 might be impressive in the world of Football Trusts - but representative it aint.
So, I view TNT in the same way I view VOTV - a fanzine representing the views of a tiny minority of fans in general. Rick however doesn't, and never has to my knowledge, claimed that VOTV is a representative organ other than representing primarily the views of its editor and contributors. I have zero issue with any of that and anyone can say what they like, and Rick as an example has earned the right to have and express whatever opinion he so wishes. But to be honest so have I the right to express personal views along with every one else - and CL provides me one of the platforms to air those views. Some will agree with my views, others will disagree, whilst the vast majority will totally disregard them! Such is life - I don't claim to represent anyone other than myself.
Perhaps the club could say 'the owner picks the team, the coach keeps them fit and reports back to the owner'. What would be wrong with saying that?
If it is indeed the case, then have it out in the open which seems to be what Brentford are doing, it will then be up to each supporter to decide if they want to go along with it.
I haven't got a strong opinion either way about whether or not the Trust should publish the interview. Well apathetic really rather than no strong opinion. I do however believe that it's unlikely to help in attempts to have open dialogue with RD. The Chairman of the trust no less admits that he doesn't expect anything the Trust do will achieve that, and I agree with Henry's comment - why bother trying despite that being the general view expressed at the Woolwich meeting.
For me the Trust, whilst noble in intent, is just another group/faction of supporters and as such I do not see them as a representative group other than expressing the views of their members and indeed the officers, despite having stated aims, a constitution et al. They most certainly do not represent me or indeed the vast majority of supporters. Just looking at figures - the last time I checked there were 1139 members of the trust. How many people if asked would openly say they are strong supporters of Charlton Athletic? It would clearly be a multiple of the average home attendance so at a guess (and probably wildly inaccurate) let's for argument say 4 x the average home attendance. based on that the membership of the trust 'represents' less than 2% of the fan base. 1139 might be impressive in the world of Football Trusts - but representative it aint.
So, I view TNT in the same way I view VOTV - a fanzine representing the views of a tiny minority of fans in general. Rick however doesn't, and never has to my knowledge, claimed that VOTV is a representative organ other than representing primarily the views of its editor and contributors. I have zero issue with any of that and anyone can say what they like, and Rick as an example has earned the right to have and express whatever opinion he so wishes. But to be honest so have I the right to express personal views along with every one else - and CL provides me one of the platforms to air those views. Some will agree with my views, others will disagree, whilst the vast majority will totally disregard them! Such is life - I don't claim to represent anyone other than myself.
Some impressive statistics. It's a pity you missed the most important and obvious one - just because "the trust 'represents' less than 2% of the fan base" it doesn't mean the other 98% don't agree with the Trust.
Some impressive statistics. It's a pity you missed the most important and obvious one - just because "the trust 'represents' less than 2% of the fan base" it doesn't mean the other 98% don't agree with the Trust.
True - but I haven't got any stats on that. Could make them up of course!!
I haven't got a strong opinion either way about whether or not the Trust should publish the interview. Well apathetic really rather than no strong opinion. I do however believe that it's unlikely to help in attempts to have open dialogue with RD. The Chairman of the trust no less admits that he doesn't expect anything the Trust do will achieve that, and I agree with Henry's comment - why bother trying despite that being the general view expressed at the Woolwich meeting.
For me the Trust, whilst noble in intent, is just another group/faction of supporters and as such I do not see them as a representative group other than expressing the views of their members and indeed the officers, despite having stated aims, a constitution et al. They most certainly do not represent me or indeed the vast majority of supporters. Just looking at figures - the last time I checked there were 1139 members of the trust. How many people if asked would openly say they are strong supporters of Charlton Athletic? It would clearly be a multiple of the average home attendance so at a guess (and probably wildly inaccurate) let's for argument say 4 x the average home attendance. based on that the membership of the trust 'represents' less than 2% of the fan base. 1139 might be impressive in the world of Football Trusts - but representative it aint.
So, I view TNT in the same way I view VOTV - a fanzine representing the views of a tiny minority of fans in general. Rick however doesn't, and never has to my knowledge, claimed that VOTV is a representative organ other than representing primarily the views of its editor and contributors. I have zero issue with any of that and anyone can say what they like, and Rick as an example has earned the right to have and express whatever opinion he so wishes. But to be honest so have I the right to express personal views along with every one else - and CL provides me one of the platforms to air those views. Some will agree with my views, others will disagree, whilst the vast majority will totally disregard them! Such is life - I don't claim to represent anyone other than myself.
What your view maybe doesn't take into account is that the Trust is a nationally recognised body, and stands up pretty well against other clubs in numbers, and that is outside of a crisis. Has a strict constitution and democratic process, and is accessible most match days via a stall.
We also have 1700 subscribers or free members.
So if you measure against other clubs who count their free members its actually more like 3000, then add the 400 or so face bookers and over 2000 twitterers
The supporters club used to have around 3000 (someone correct me here) and had lot of support from CAFC, at its height but those people paid membership usually for services like travel, and social events.
Our circulation also equals and possibly exceeds the clubs programme. We also relaunched fanzines at CAFC (came out a month or so before the revival of VOTV), in the internet age, something when I advocated it I was told would never carry.
We also use scientific research to find out what fans think, so we can understand what the majority are thinking on issues, something no one else does.
All in all a lot of work goes into it, sometimes using walk up interviews not just web surveys, and I think the result is that makes us as representative as is probably likely in the circumstance.
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, (1) from the very start you seem unable to accept the assurances that have been given by the trust that this is not the position.!. (2) 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. (3) 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..........?
Do I believe you ?
I have marked your post.
(1) I have been a clear supporter of The Trust up until I questioned the recent questionnaire content and now this interview
(2) The Survey question - my point wasn't about RD's potential 'recoil' (I don't imagine he gives a turd) it was about the question being a clear indication of one of just 4 outcomes The Trust appeared to be seeking
(3) I thought Murray and The Trust were in ongoing dialogue but might have got that wrong
I do not think the article will bring your much wanted meeting with RD so if that is your objective then I do not think it was an act that would help achieve it.
Some people think that the truth can be hidden with a little cover-up and decoration. But as time goes by, what is true is revealed, and what is fake fades away.
Some people think that the truth can be hidden with a little cover-up and decoration. But as time goes by, what is true is revealed, and what is fake fades away.
Exactly, there was plenty of sucking up to the previous joke owners and the same thing has happened with the Belgian circus , who do have a few plus points to them as well in all fairness
A very interesting development. I'm kind of on the fence on the timing of this. On the one hand, I think that the truth is the be all and end all and "publish and be damned". Yet on the other hand, the timing isn't great.
However, I've been more vocal than many on this subject. It was I who questioned Katrien, on this very subject at the VIP meeting. The response was that anyone making such comments "had left the club". For me, that was, never a response of any meaning. For me, it was akin to "no comment". Especially, when Mick Everitt told Katrien not to answer.
Now, the thing for me, is this.
If RD & KM are so proud of their plans/their way of doing things. If they truly believe that they are right and the rest of the football world is wrong. Then why are they covering up, what goes on, with a tissue of lies ?
Fanny, possibly among others, said that hopefully, this was all in the past and we could maybe move on.
However, I can't find the SLP interview with Bob Peeters, but he also said the same, as did Rednic at Liege and I can't believe, that the most recent coach at Liege, was sacked because of results. They were unbeaten in about 10 games, won the majority and he moved them up from 12th to 5th. His reward, sacked !
The way I see the timing is that it's apposite - Powell's in town and has some things to say, the Trust are hardly going to pull his words in case someone gets precious about them. We will pick up the important themes in the editorial and elsewhere in TNT. If we published Tuesday it would be all 'move on'. :-)
I doubt very much the club will be up in arms about the Trust carrying the story. There are similar stories in the SLP and in tonight's Standard, although Heather's piece is way more empathetic to our supporters than those can be. It appears they're beginning to pick up the theme - the Season Ticket renewal emails sent earlier this week attempt to pick up a 'together' theme, albeit somewhat feebly (and there's poor timing!) - and it can't harm to keep the focus on the importance of a meaningful dialogue with supporters.
I agree with Covered End. If their plans are so ground-breaking and so damn right, why wouldn't they try to get the supporters to buy into them? To not do so might be inferred to mean the supporters aren't important to their plans - and that does seem to be the underlying reason why so many have said they wouldn't renew this year. Reckless, wouldn't you say, when gate income remains a key source of revenue for any break-even strategy?
Unless those plans are so unpalatable, such as the owner interfering in team selection, that revealing them would be even more damaging...
Once Chrissy opened up during the interview the Trust were damned if they published, damned if they didn't. Had it been a plain, old piece along the "enjoyed my time here, great fans, shame it didn't work out but now got a job to do for HTFC..." then no one would have batted an eyelid or queried the timing for a moment imo. We are playing his new team so clearly it's the time of greatest relevance.
From the sounds of it though CP was more forthcoming than expected, meaning the Trust was placed in a dilemma. Don't publish and the anti-Rowland side will be reading this as complicit approval/support for the board. Publish and face accusations that they are undermining the club/team.
For me, it's better to publish for no other reason than because this game was always the intended time for publication. Rather this than be accused of using the content and timing of the piece one way or another to support/discredit the board.
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, (1) from the very start you seem unable to accept the assurances that have been given by the trust that this is not the position.!. (2) 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. (3) 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..........?
Do I believe you ?
I have marked your post.
(1) I have been a clear supporter of The Trust up until I questioned the recent questionnaire content and now this interview
(2) The Survey question - my point wasn't about RD's potential 'recoil' (I don't imagine he gives a turd) it was about the question being a clear indication of one of just 4 outcomes The Trust appeared to be seeking
(3) I thought Murray and The Trust were in ongoing dialogue but might have got that wrong
I do not think the article will bring your much wanted meeting with RD so if that is your objective then I do not think it was an act that would help achieve it.
1, So you yourself wish to question the trust, but do not like the idea of the trust asking robust and searching questions, remember the trust is a critical friend, that is one of it's aims.If you have been an member of the trust from the start you have every right to question the board, you can question me if you like. Exactly what is your issue?
2. That is your assumption. Is RD, or anyone else at the club not going to talk to the SLP, The standard, or any other media organization that interviews a former manager that gives his opinion?. I think based on my nearly 40 years in the media I think not. But we shall see, shall we not in the following weeks.
3. Richard Murray has spoken at two public events, organized in just over a year, by the trust, I do not personally have Richard's email or phone number, but there is a communication dialogue. I have also met him at the POTYA, and the ACV event at the Valley which I was involved with.
I have been involved in a few roles/Events at CAFC, in fairness to those other people it would not be fair to speak on there behalf, or should I.
As we have not met I am sorry I do not know you personally. I can only assure you that as a founding board member it is the aim of the trust to seek meaningfull dialogue with the club, wether it be with the past or present owners. I myself Interviewed Martin Simon's in the trust news a few issues ago, and wrote an article about the then proposed new academy, and spoke to Peter Varney, and the club's CEO Steve Bradshaw. Not sure there was too much in those articles that was anti-club or anyone complained about.
I am glad you have been supportive of the trust in the past.
A very interesting development. I'm kind of on the fence on the timing of this. On the one hand, I think that the truth is the be all and end all and "publish and be damned". Yet on the other hand, the timing isn't great.
However, I've been more vocal than many on this subject. It was I who questioned Katrien, on this very subject at the VIP meeting. The response was that anyone making such comments "had left the club". For me, that was, never a response of any meaning. For me, it was akin to "no comment". Especially, when Mick Everitt told Katrien not to answer.
Now, the thing for me, is this.
If RD & KM are so proud of their plans/their way of doing things. If they truly believe that they are right and the rest of the football world is wrong. Then why are they covering up, what goes on, with a tissue of lies ?
Fanny, possibly among others, said that hopefully, this was all in the past and we could maybe move on.
However, I can't find the SLP interview with Bob Peeters, but he also said the same, as did Rednic at Liege and I can't believe, that the most recent coach at Liege, was sacked because of results. They were unbeaten in about 10 games, won the majority and he moved them up from 12th to 5th. His reward, sacked !
As I said at Woolwich, you can look at this two ways. Katrien's interpretation is that she speaks truth whereas none of the many people who have alluded to Roland's interference can be trusted because they are all "former employees". However, you could equally well argue that she is the only one being paid and therefore the only one with an ongoing interest in telling lies.
Someone at one of these meetings should ask her specifically what was in the email received by Chris Powell before the Sheffield United game.
A very interesting development. I'm kind of on the fence on the timing of this. On the one hand, I think that the truth is the be all and end all and "publish and be damned". Yet on the other hand, the timing isn't great.
However, I've been more vocal than many on this subject. It was I who questioned Katrien, on this very subject at the VIP meeting. The response was that anyone making such comments "had left the club". For me, that was, never a response of any meaning. For me, it was akin to "no comment". Especially, when Mick Everitt told Katrien not to answer.
Now, the thing for me, is this.
If RD & KM are so proud of their plans/their way of doing things. If they truly believe that they are right and the rest of the football world is wrong. Then why are they covering up, what goes on, with a tissue of lies ?
Fanny, possibly among others, said that hopefully, this was all in the past and we could maybe move on.
However, I can't find the SLP interview with Bob Peeters, but he also said the same, as did Rednic at Liege and I can't believe, that the most recent coach at Liege, was sacked because of results. They were unbeaten in about 10 games, won the majority and he moved them up from 12th to 5th. His reward, sacked !
As I said at Woolwich, you can look at this two ways. Katrien's interpretation is that she speaks truth whereas none of the many people who have alluded to Roland's interference can be trusted because they are all "former employees". However, you could equally well argue that she is the only one being paid and therefore the only one with an ongoing interest in telling lies.
Someone at one of these meetings should ask her specifically what was in the email received by Chris Powell before the Sheffield United game.
Can you enlighten us about this said email AB? Have you also seen or read it?
Comments
As I've said many times, the club doesn't choose the SLP as their main avenue to the press. It is the only "almost local" newspaper left with a properly staffed sports desk that covers the club in print. The Shopper doesn't go for the same kind of in-depth articles and for similar reasons hasn't built the relationships. The SLP is the only game in town.
there'd be plenty of people saying there you go even the Charlton god SCP admits how wonderful our owner is
the fact it's not a pretty message that wil be painted by our crank of an owner doesn't mean the message should be stifled
family club , really , more like joke club unfortunately
The overwhelming view that I took away from the public meeting is that people just want to know what’s going on at the club, how it’s being run and what the goals are. If the current owner and his representatives are unwilling or unable to provide that information then it must be sought from other sources – almost unarguably the next best source is Chris Powell who, despite his vested interests, is not a liar.
For me the Trust, whilst noble in intent, is just another group/faction of supporters and as such I do not see them as a representative group other than expressing the views of their members and indeed the officers, despite having stated aims, a constitution et al. They most certainly do not represent me or indeed the vast majority of supporters. Just looking at figures - the last time I checked there were 1139 members of the trust. How many people if asked would openly say they are strong supporters of Charlton Athletic? It would clearly be a multiple of the average home attendance so at a guess (and probably wildly inaccurate) let's for argument say 4 x the average home attendance. based on that the membership of the trust 'represents' less than 2% of the fan base. 1139 might be impressive in the world of Football Trusts - but representative it aint.
So, I view TNT in the same way I view VOTV - a fanzine representing the views of a tiny minority of fans in general. Rick however doesn't, and never has to my knowledge, claimed that VOTV is a representative organ other than representing primarily the views of its editor and contributors. I have zero issue with any of that and anyone can say what they like, and Rick as an example has earned the right to have and express whatever opinion he so wishes. But to be honest so have I the right to express personal views along with every one else - and CL provides me one of the platforms to air those views. Some will agree with my views, others will disagree, whilst the vast majority will totally disregard them! Such is life - I don't claim to represent anyone other than myself.
If it is indeed the case, then have it out in the open which seems to be what Brentford are doing, it will then be up to each supporter to decide if they want to go along with it.
We also have 1700 subscribers or free members.
So if you measure against other clubs who count their free members its actually more like 3000, then add the 400 or so face bookers and over 2000 twitterers
The supporters club used to have around 3000 (someone correct me here) and had lot of support from CAFC, at its height but those people paid membership usually for services like travel, and social events.
Our circulation also equals and possibly exceeds the clubs programme. We also relaunched fanzines at CAFC (came out a month or so before the revival of VOTV), in the internet age, something when I advocated it I was told would never carry.
We also use scientific research to find out what fans think, so we can understand what the majority are thinking on issues, something no one else does.
All in all a lot of work goes into it, sometimes using walk up interviews not just web surveys, and I think the result is that makes us as representative as is probably likely in the circumstance.
I have marked your post.
(1) I have been a clear supporter of The Trust up until I questioned the recent questionnaire content and now this interview
(2) The Survey question - my point wasn't about RD's potential 'recoil' (I don't imagine he gives a turd) it was about the question being a clear indication of one of just 4 outcomes The Trust appeared to be seeking
(3) I thought Murray and The Trust were in ongoing dialogue but might have got that wrong
I do not think the article will bring your much wanted meeting with RD so if that is your objective then I do not think it was an act that would help achieve it.
On the one hand, I think that the truth is the be all and end all and "publish and be damned".
Yet on the other hand, the timing isn't great.
However, I've been more vocal than many on this subject. It was I who questioned Katrien, on this very subject at the VIP meeting. The response was that anyone making such comments "had left the club".
For me, that was, never a response of any meaning. For me, it was akin to "no comment".
Especially, when Mick Everitt told Katrien not to answer.
Now, the thing for me, is this.
If RD & KM are so proud of their plans/their way of doing things. If they truly believe that they are right and the rest of the football world is wrong. Then why are they covering up, what goes on, with a tissue of lies ?
Fanny, possibly among others, said that hopefully, this was all in the past and we could maybe move on.
However, I can't find the SLP interview with Bob Peeters, but he also said the same, as did Rednic at Liege and I can't believe, that the most recent coach at Liege, was sacked because of results. They were unbeaten in about 10 games, won the majority and he moved them up from 12th to 5th. His reward, sacked !
(joking)
I doubt very much the club will be up in arms about the Trust carrying the story. There are similar stories in the SLP and in tonight's Standard, although Heather's piece is way more empathetic to our supporters than those can be. It appears they're beginning to pick up the theme - the Season Ticket renewal emails sent earlier this week attempt to pick up a 'together' theme, albeit somewhat feebly (and there's poor timing!) - and it can't harm to keep the focus on the importance of a meaningful dialogue with supporters.
I agree with Covered End. If their plans are so ground-breaking and so damn right, why wouldn't they try to get the supporters to buy into them? To not do so might be inferred to mean the supporters aren't important to their plans - and that does seem to be the underlying reason why so many have said they wouldn't renew this year. Reckless, wouldn't you say, when gate income remains a key source of revenue for any break-even strategy?
Unless those plans are so unpalatable, such as the owner interfering in team selection, that revealing them would be even more damaging...
From the sounds of it though CP was more forthcoming than expected, meaning the Trust was placed in a dilemma. Don't publish and the anti-Rowland side will be reading this as complicit approval/support for the board. Publish and face accusations that they are undermining the club/team.
For me, it's better to publish for no other reason than because this game was always the intended time for publication. Rather this than be accused of using the content and timing of the piece one way or another to support/discredit the board.
Exactly what is your issue?
2. That is your assumption. Is RD, or anyone else at the club not going to talk to the SLP, The standard, or any other media organization that interviews a former manager that gives his opinion?. I think based on my nearly 40 years in the media I think not. But we shall see, shall we not in the following weeks.
3. Richard Murray has spoken at two public events, organized in just over a year, by the trust, I do not personally have Richard's email or phone number, but there is a communication dialogue. I have also met him at the POTYA, and the ACV event at the Valley which I was involved with.
I have been involved in a few roles/Events at CAFC, in fairness to those other people it would not be fair to speak on there behalf, or should I.
As we have not met I am sorry I do not know you personally. I can only assure you that as a founding board member it is the aim of the trust to seek meaningfull dialogue with the club, wether it be with the past or present owners. I myself Interviewed Martin Simon's in the trust news a few issues ago, and wrote an article about the then proposed new academy, and spoke to Peter Varney, and the club's CEO Steve Bradshaw. Not sure there was too much in those articles that was anti-club or anyone complained about.
I am glad you have been supportive of the trust in the past.
Someone at one of these meetings should ask her specifically what was in the email received by Chris Powell before the Sheffield United game.