To be honest, I think your line of questioning is not only unrealistic, but also arrogant, if you really think the owner would provide such sensitive information over specific details and timings of how he intends to drive the Club forward.
Are these really the key questions being asked of the Executive? If so, then no wonder they're not getting back to you.
One things for sure, RD's not pissed £40m of his own money up the wall to see us fail. Despite his obvious mistakes on the way. And I'm damn sure he can get better than a 3% return on his money elsewhere.
As I made perfectly clear, they are my own personal wish list of questions I would like to put to RD. Similar questions were freely asked and answered by what you call the Executive in our most successful period, and as a result fans poured their money as well as support into the project, because they had confidence in it and felt some ownership of it.
BTW, £40m? Where on earth did you pull that figure from?
I understand where you are coming from completely.
But what you need to understand is that RD is not RM. He has completely different ethos in the way he intends to run the Club. He's not a wealthy fan who's become 'addickted'. He sees CAFC as a tool to raise his profile and possibly make some money in the long run.
I wouldn't be surprised if, that by the end of this season, his total outlay will be close to £40m.
Maybe this "we" also includes most of the 400 who came to the open meeting on February 18th and raised the same questions.
Wrong ... These were not the questions that the '400' left with you.
Either way, are those questions of no interest to you?
I'm just curious...
The answers to those questions would be very useful and of great interest. With the industry I work in I would very much like to know William Hill's marketing strategy for Cheltenham next week - but I don't expect them to make it public before the event due to the commercially sensitive nature of such information! Similarly I wouldn't divulge to my company's customers what our strategy is for Cheltenham before the event. Likewise I would not anticipate RD sharing his strategy with anyone other than his close business associates and expecting him to do so, or want to do so is, as I've said on previous threads, naive. I'm not sure any football club in the country, and in particular in the top two divisions, would openly share that level of detail.
Let him be judged by his actions - and so far, albeit with hiccups along the way as part of a learning curve, the evidence is that he doesn't want the club to fail.
Here's another question - who picks the team? I really don't care if it's the manager, the head coach, the chairman or the bloody car park attendant in between filling in the potholes - as long as we are successful.
The comparison with William Hill is a bit meaningless, since football clubs don't compete for customers in the same way, therefore there is less need for secrecy, and the relationship between bookies and punters is utterly different to that between clubs and fans.
I think we are entitled to know if the main object of his ownership is to progress the club or some kind of network experiment in proving how clever he is (or some combination of both), because if he isn't focused on success for Charlton then essentially the club becomes a con on the fans. I do accept the evidence he wants to avoid relegation.
Some people take the view that he must want promotion because of the money at stake and therefore no other explanation is necessary, which I understand. Nevertheless he managed to lose a tranche of season ticket holders and a chunk of revenue last summer and is perilously close to losing another lot. It's unnecessary..
As was spunking millions on Dowie and Pardew and their favourite agents. Think I know which approach I prefer. Whichever is most likely for success. Btw How many is a tranche? And how many agent payments would that lost revenue account for? Won't fans return as performance on the pitch improves?
To be honest, I think your line of questioning is not only unrealistic, but also arrogant, if you really think the owner would provide such sensitive information over specific details and timings of how he intends to drive the Club forward.
Are these really the key questions being asked of the Executive? If so, then no wonder they're not getting back to you.
One things for sure, RD's not pissed £40m of his own money up the wall to see us fail. Despite his obvious mistakes on the way. And I'm damn sure he can get better than a 3% return on his money elsewhere.
As I made perfectly clear, they are my own personal wish list of questions I would like to put to RD. Similar questions were freely asked and answered by what you call the Executive in our most successful period, and as a result fans poured their money as well as support into the project, because they had confidence in it and felt some ownership of it.
BTW, £40m? Where on earth did you pull that figure from?
I understand where you are coming from completely.
But what you need to understand is that RD is not RM. He has completely different ethos in the way he intends to run the Club. He's not a wealthy fan who's become 'addickted'. He sees CAFC as a tool to raise his profile and possibly make some money in the long run.
I wouldn't be surprised if, that by the end of this season, his total outlay will be close to £40m.
I had always thought he was a Wolves fan, don't know why.
Maybe this "we" also includes most of the 400 who came to the open meeting on February 18th and raised the same questions.
Wrong ... These were not the questions that the '400' left with you.
Either way, are those questions of no interest to you?
I'm just curious...
The answers to those questions would be very useful and of great interest. With the industry I work in I would very much like to know William Hill's marketing strategy for Cheltenham next week - but I don't expect them to make it public before the event due to the commercially sensitive nature of such information! Similarly I wouldn't divulge to my company's customers what our strategy is for Cheltenham before the event. Likewise I would not anticipate RD sharing his strategy with anyone other than his close business associates and expecting him to do so, or want to do so is, as I've said on previous threads, naive. I'm not sure any football club in the country, and in particular in the top two divisions, would openly share that level of detail.
Let him be judged by his actions - and so far, albeit with hiccups along the way as part of a learning curve, the evidence is that he doesn't want the club to fail.
Here's another question - who picks the team? I really don't care if it's the manager, the head coach, the chairman or the bloody car park attendant in between filling in the potholes - as long as we are successful.
From the early 90s until the mid 2000s Richard Murray and other directors felt it sensible to explain their business strategy for the club to a similar level to that which I'm asking about now. I confess that I'm not very clear about your horse racing analogy, but RM and co. considered that the committed fans were not punters but stakeholders and deserved to be treated as such.
That's because we were Stakeholders.
Murray never consulted with us when he removed that stakeholding overnight.
The days of the Chairman 'phoning you for a cozy chat are over Prague.
Again, a puzzlingly aggressive personal remark, aimed at someone you've never met.
The communication with fans involved various fan groups. Since I was in Prague from 1993, I obviously wasn't around for them, other than the launch of the share issue, where obviously the board shared quite a lot of detail. My main understanding of the Club's business direction came from other fans, some of whom were appointed to play that role, if you recall.
Maybe this "we" also includes most of the 400 who came to the open meeting on February 18th and raised the same questions.
Wrong ... These were not the questions that the '400' left with you.
Either way, are those questions of no interest to you?
I'm just curious...
Here's another question - who picks the team? I really don't care if it's the manager, the head coach, the chairman or the bloody car park attendant in between filling in the potholes - as long as we are successful.
Out of interest @bobmunro (and most people think the same), is it still no issue for you who picks the team if / when we are not successful?
I would argue if that were the case that the wrong person was picking the team - whoever that was!
This debate on the past owners is fruitless. I'm not entirely sure how anyone's attitude to the last lot has any relationship with whether or not we should take a certain view on the current owner.
KM has insisted that she is the conduit for communication with RD. An organisation now carrying the mandate of around 1200 paid members, 1700 free members and 150 or so non-members at the public meeting have asked her for a conversation. Repeatedly. She's declined with two main reasons given: she's already told the fans enough about the strategy, and she doesn't want to favour one supporters group over another.
Well this thread shows how much we fans understand about the strategy. Pretty much nothing.
And in terms of favouring one supporters group over another, so far KM's arranged to meet with the Fans' Forum, EK Addicks, Bromley Addicks, the VIPs, the Junior Council and a 15 year old boy. One might conclude that suggests favour of just about any fans group over the Supporters' Trust. A strange approach when you're encouraging people to buy season tickets so that we can work for a "better future together".
For me, though, the resistance is more about the challenge of how to control a conversation with a group likely to ask some difficult questions. But that's not what a conversation is about is it, one person controlling it? It's about two sides listening to each other and talking together - particularly when one is consistently saying, talk to us because we think we can help you succeed.
If the club really do want a better future together, sidelining a group that numbers around a third of your season ticket base seems an odd place to start.
Maybe this "we" also includes most of the 400 who came to the open meeting on February 18th and raised the same questions.
Wrong ... These were not the questions that the '400' left with you.
Either way, are those questions of no interest to you?
I'm just curious...
The answers to those questions would be very useful and of great interest. With the industry I work in I would very much like to know William Hill's marketing strategy for Cheltenham next week - but I don't expect them to make it public before the event due to the commercially sensitive nature of such information! Similarly I wouldn't divulge to my company's customers what our strategy is for Cheltenham before the event. Likewise I would not anticipate RD sharing his strategy with anyone other than his close business associates and expecting him to do so, or want to do so is, as I've said on previous threads, naive. I'm not sure any football club in the country, and in particular in the top two divisions, would openly share that level of detail.
Let him be judged by his actions - and so far, albeit with hiccups along the way as part of a learning curve, the evidence is that he doesn't want the club to fail.
Here's another question - who picks the team? I really don't care if it's the manager, the head coach, the chairman or the bloody car park attendant in between filling in the potholes - as long as we are successful.
From the early 90s until the mid 2000s Richard Murray and other directors felt it sensible to explain their business strategy for the club to a similar level to that which I'm asking about now. I confess that I'm not very clear about your horse racing analogy, but RM and co. considered that the committed fans were not punters but stakeholders and deserved to be treated as such.
That's because we were Stakeholders.
Murray never consulted with us when he removed that stakeholding overnight.
The days of the Chairman 'phoning you for a cozy chat are over Prague.
Again, a puzzlingly aggressive personal remark, aimed at someone you've never met.
Firstly, you are the one who has posted on here about your telephone conversations with RM.
Secondly, we have met before, but I obviously didn't make any impression on you.
Neither it would appear have the issues I've raised in this thread.
But you carry banging on about how RD intends to finance his club.
Maybe this "we" also includes most of the 400 who came to the open meeting on February 18th and raised the same questions.
Wrong ... These were not the questions that the '400' left with you.
Either way, are those questions of no interest to you?
I'm just curious...
The answers to those questions would be very useful and of great interest. With the industry I work in I would very much like to know William Hill's marketing strategy for Cheltenham next week - but I don't expect them to make it public before the event due to the commercially sensitive nature of such information! Similarly I wouldn't divulge to my company's customers what our strategy is for Cheltenham before the event. Likewise I would not anticipate RD sharing his strategy with anyone other than his close business associates and expecting him to do so, or want to do so is, as I've said on previous threads, naive. I'm not sure any football club in the country, and in particular in the top two divisions, would openly share that level of detail.
Let him be judged by his actions - and so far, albeit with hiccups along the way as part of a learning curve, the evidence is that he doesn't want the club to fail.
Here's another question - who picks the team? I really don't care if it's the manager, the head coach, the chairman or the bloody car park attendant in between filling in the potholes - as long as we are successful.
From the early 90s until the mid 2000s Richard Murray and other directors felt it sensible to explain their business strategy for the club to a similar level to that which I'm asking about now. I confess that I'm not very clear about your horse racing analogy, but RM and co. considered that the committed fans were not punters but stakeholders and deserved to be treated as such.
I thought you were demanding an audience with RD? Why? Did you demand the same from Cash? Have I, as is often the case, got that wrong? Would you be happy with more communications just with KM?
I thought you were demanding an audience with RD?
We think it would be helpful, since if we could understand his strategy better we could help explain to the wider group of supporters. That's how it was done in the past, successfully
Why? Did you demand the same from Cash?
Nobody really knows for sure but it seems Cash was gone before the Trust was formed
Have I, as is often the case, got that wrong?
Only in the sense that none of us really know about Cash's involvement. The Trust of course needed time to build itself up before seeking a dialogue with anyone on the Board.
Would you be happy with more communications just with KM?
I think the answer to that is that fans at Woolwich mandated us to seek more dialogue, and Katrien has said that she is the person who speaks for the owner. So yes, more communication with her would take us closer to an understanding of RD's strategy. But as I said somewhere else on CL, the voice that counts is that of the majority owner. That's not a slight on Katrien. In the old days it was the guys with equity who talked to the fans. Not Peter Varney. Personally I've always been genuinely interested to understand RD, and not just on football, but he apparently has a difficult time talking openly to anyone of the public he nevertheless seeks to influence. I'm talking about his involvement in politics. The thing with politics is, you have to engage, and this is what he seems to find difficult. BTW we should have a Belgian interview with him on the Trust website soon, if we can find someone to translate it from the Dutch.
Maybe this "we" also includes most of the 400 who came to the open meeting on February 18th and raised the same questions.
Wrong ... These were not the questions that the '400' left with you.
Either way, are those questions of no interest to you?
I'm just curious...
The answers to those questions would be very useful and of great interest. With the industry I work in I would very much like to know William Hill's marketing strategy for Cheltenham next week - but I don't expect them to make it public before the event due to the commercially sensitive nature of such information! Similarly I wouldn't divulge to my company's customers what our strategy is for Cheltenham before the event. Likewise I would not anticipate RD sharing his strategy with anyone other than his close business associates and expecting him to do so, or want to do so is, as I've said on previous threads, naive. I'm not sure any football club in the country, and in particular in the top two divisions, would openly share that level of detail.
Let him be judged by his actions - and so far, albeit with hiccups along the way as part of a learning curve, the evidence is that he doesn't want the club to fail.
Here's another question - who picks the team? I really don't care if it's the manager, the head coach, the chairman or the bloody car park attendant in between filling in the potholes - as long as we are successful.
From the early 90s until the mid 2000s Richard Murray and other directors felt it sensible to explain their business strategy for the club to a similar level to that which I'm asking about now. I confess that I'm not very clear about your horse racing analogy, but RM and co. considered that the committed fans were not punters but stakeholders and deserved to be treated as such.
I thought you were demanding an audience with RD? Why? Did you demand the same from Cash? Have I, as is often the case, got that wrong? Would you be happy with more communications just with KM?
I thought you were demanding an audience with RD?
We think it would be helpful, since if we could understand his strategy better we could help explain to the wider group of supporters. That's how it was done in the past, successfully
Why? Did you demand the same from Cash?
Nobody really knows for sure but it seems Cash was gone before the Trust was formed
Have I, as is often the case, got that wrong?
Only in the sense that none of us really know about Cash's involvement. The Trust of course needed time to build itself up before seeking a dialogue with anyone on the Board.
Would you be happy with more communications just with KM?
I think the answer to that is that fans at Woolwich mandated us to seek more dialogue, and Katrien has said that she is the person who speaks for the owner. So yes, more communication with her would take us closer to an understanding of RD's strategy. But as I said somewhere else on CL, the voice that counts is that of the majority owner. That's not a slight on Katrien. In the old days it was the guys with equity who talked to the fans. Not Peter Varney. Personally I've always been genuinely interested to understand RD, and not just on football, but he apparently has a difficult time talking openly to anyone of the public he nevertheless seeks to influence. I'm talking about his involvement in politics. The thing with politics is, you have to engage, and this is what he seems to find difficult. BTW we should have a Belgian interview with him on the Trust website soon, if we can find someone to translate it from the Dutch.
I think it's unfortunate that a small handful are being wilfully obtuse.
It's clear that Kevin Cash was an investor backing Tony Jiminez. That's one obvious reason why no one queried his "personal" involvement in the Club.
If you can't understand why so many have anxiety's about the future of the Club, then get on with it and leave the "thinking" to the big kids.
Ah, but whom are the 'small handful'.
I, and most of the fans I talk to are anxious about the direction of the Club. I just believe the current approach by the Trust/G21 is confrontational and not helpful.
Times have changed, the owner has changed, but the same dogma is being trotted out time and time again. Hence the impasse.
I think it's unfortunate that a small handful are being wilfully obtuse.
It's clear that Kevin Cash was an investor backing Tony Jiminez. That's one obvious reason why no one queried his "personal" involvement in the Club.
If you can't understand why so many have anxiety's about the future of the Club, then get on with it and leave the "thinking" to the big kids.
Ah, but whom are the 'small handful'.
I, and most of the fans I talk to are anxious about the direction of the Club. I just believe the current approach by the Trust/G21 is confrontational and not helpful.
Times have changed, the owner has changed, but the same dogma is being trotted out time and time again. Hence the impasse.
Well, it was @Covered End who started this part of the thread by making a number of pertinent remarks about RD's business strategy. Presumably you don't include him in what you describe as a "current approach" by a "grouping" that does not actually exist, and never has done. (why even make that remark???) As I read his post, he was fairly certain about what RD's strategy is. I feel that I have never been as certain as he is, because I never heard RD say it so clearly. I posed a number of my own questions. More than one answer to the break even question- which are perfectly possible -would actually make RD's plans less concerning than Covered End's assumption (e.g he might seek to break even across Staprix, and over perhaps 5 years, and CAFC are supported to get in the FAPL, then when we get there, Standard may benefit, etc). I don't see how to raise such questions among fellow fans is "arrogant" and I certainly don't see what makes it "dogma". I was simply pondering a business strategy because it concerns a business I care about. Every day you can read or hear people writing about Amazon's business strategy, pondering why it puts cash flow above profit, not to mention its tax issues. Do you think they should shut up, less Jeff Bezos gets angry and stops providing you with cut price DVDs?
But since you feel so strongly about it I'll leave this particular discussion to you to moderate.
One that doesn't demand instant responses to sensitive business issues. One that doesn't make perceived threads to orchestrate a ST boycott. One that is conciliatory and supportive. One that doesn't constantly go on about how it was better under a previous regime. One that acknowledges mistakes and learns from them rather than throw them back in your face and bring them up every time something doesn't go the way you hope it will.
I think it's unfortunate that a small handful are being wilfully obtuse.
It's clear that Kevin Cash was an investor backing Tony Jiminez. That's one obvious reason why no one queried his "personal" involvement in the Club.
If you can't understand why so many have anxiety's about the future of the Club, then get on with it and leave the "thinking" to the big kids.
Ah, but whom are the 'small handful'.
I, and most of the fans I talk to are anxious about the direction of the Club. I just believe the current approach by the Trust/G21 is confrontational and not helpful.
Times have changed, the owner has changed, but the same dogma is being trotted out time and time again. Hence the impasse.
Well, it was @Covered End who started this part of the thread by making a number of pertinent remarks about RD's business strategy. Presumably you don't include him in what you describe as a "current approach" by a "grouping" that does not actually exist, and never has done. (why even make that remark???) As I read his post, he was fairly certain about what RD's strategy is. I feel that I have never been as certain as he is, because I never heard RD say it so clearly. I posed a number of my own questions. More than one answer to the break even question- which are perfectly possible -would actually make RD's plans less concerning than Covered End's assumption (e.g he might seek to break even across Staprix, and over perhaps 5 years, and CAFC are supported to get in the FAPL, then when we get there, Standard may benefit, etc). I don't see how to raise such questions among fellow fans is "arrogant" and I certainly don't see what makes it "dogma". I was simply pondering a business strategy because it concerns a business I care about. Every day you can read or hear people writing about Amazon's business strategy, pondering why it puts cash flow above profit, not to mention its tax issues. Do you think they should shut up, less Jeff Bezos gets angry and stops providing you with cut price DVDs?
But since you feel so strongly about it I'll leave this particular discussion to you to moderate.
Bit late now really Prague.
The original post is an attempt to open dialogue. To start afresh for the benefit of hopefully everyone. It is an attempt to wipe the slate clean and commence building partnerships between the owner, his representatives (as they are the conduit) and us the fans.
However, with all the other threads out there for you to post on, you decide that this is the one to raise your five ludicrous demands of an owner who has already told you to mind your own business.
I get the idea. You want Roland to tell you everything from his marketing strategy to his inside leg measurement.
All I want is to improve communications and show the Executive that we can work with them and the opening post is my feeble attempt at trying to do that by building bridges rather than burning them.
But then you decided this sort of conciliatory post wasn't part of the agenda you clearly have, so you hi-jacked it
I think it's unfortunate that a small handful are being wilfully obtuse.
It's clear that Kevin Cash was an investor backing Tony Jiminez. That's one obvious reason why no one queried his "personal" involvement in the Club.
If you can't understand why so many have anxiety's about the future of the Club, then get on with it and leave the "thinking" to the big kids.
in my opinion there are a great many who do not share theses anxieties about the future of the Club so perhaps they should leave the posturing to the little kids?
I think it's unfortunate that a small handful are being wilfully obtuse.
It's clear that Kevin Cash was an investor backing Tony Jiminez. That's one obvious reason why no one queried his "personal" involvement in the Club.
If you can't understand why so many have anxiety's about the future of the Club, then get on with it and leave the "thinking" to the big kids.
Ah, but whom are the 'small handful'.
I, and most of the fans I talk to are anxious about the direction of the Club. I just believe the current approach by the Trust/G21 is confrontational and not helpful.
Times have changed, the owner has changed, but the same dogma is being trotted out time and time again. Hence the impasse.
Well, it was @Covered End who started this part of the thread by making a number of pertinent remarks about RD's business strategy. Presumably you don't include him in what you describe as a "current approach" by a "grouping" that does not actually exist, and never has done. (why even make that remark???) As I read his post, he was fairly certain about what RD's strategy is. I feel that I have never been as certain as he is, because I never heard RD say it so clearly. I posed a number of my own questions. More than one answer to the break even question- which are perfectly possible -would actually make RD's plans less concerning than Covered End's assumption (e.g he might seek to break even across Staprix, and over perhaps 5 years, and CAFC are supported to get in the FAPL, then when we get there, Standard may benefit, etc). I don't see how to raise such questions among fellow fans is "arrogant" and I certainly don't see what makes it "dogma". I was simply pondering a business strategy because it concerns a business I care about. Every day you can read or hear people writing about Amazon's business strategy, pondering why it puts cash flow above profit, not to mention its tax issues. Do you think they should shut up, less Jeff Bezos gets angry and stops providing you with cut price DVDs?
But since you feel so strongly about it I'll leave this particular discussion to you to moderate.
Well Dave, I guess another 400 people (who braved a cold evening to express their feelings at not having a bloody clue what RD is doing with their club) are also missing what they've already been told, right?
Or perhaps you're satisfied with KM's words on the matter a few weeks back:
"Our aim has always been since we came here to create a stable and competitive Championship club. Apart from that, it’s a vision of the owner - like he does with his other clubs - that a football club becomes a gathering point where you meet your friends and family and have a good time. You enjoy the football, you have a beer and a laugh and you go home with a good feeling.”
I wonder if the owner asked any of us if we'd prefer our engagement with the club to be reduced to a Saturday afternoon social?
Or perhaps you're satisfied with KM's words on the matter a few weeks back:
"Our aim has always been since we came here to create a stable and competitive Championship club. Apart from that, it’s a vision of the owner - like he does with his other clubs - that a football club becomes a gathering point where you meet your friends and family and have a good time. You enjoy the football, you have a beer and a laugh and you go home with a good feeling.”
I wonder if the owner asked any of us if we'd prefer our engagement with the club to be reduced to a Saturday afternoon social?
a football club becomes a gathering point - that is what is has always been, so why the problem?
meet your friends and family and have a good time - well, apart from the bad games, what is wrong with that?
enjoy the football - yup
have a beer and a laugh - yup
go home with a good feeling - perfect
As I have continually stated, I support the pursuit of dialogue, but the above statement, simplistic or not, whether you believe it or not, suits most football fans, not just Charlton
I think where the ambiguity arises @bobmunro is that rarely those things can achieved without a 'competitive' football team, and that involves putting the right resources or player development transition in place to achieve that.
No one enjoys their beer, friends, or jokes when the game and the team is failing (apart from my crew who get the benefits of my Champions League standard ban tor)
I think where the ambiguity arises @bobmunro is that rarely those things can achieved without a 'competitive' football team, and that involves putting the right resources or player development transition in place to achieve that.
No one enjoys their beer, friends, or jokes when the game and the team is failing (apart from my crew who get the benefits of my Champions League standard ban tor)
Watford away was one of the best laughs I've had in years
I think where the ambiguity arises @bobmunro is that rarely those things can achieved without a 'competitive' football team, and that involves putting the right resources or player development transition in place to achieve that.
No one enjoys their beer, friends, or jokes when the game and the team is failing (apart from my crew who get the benefits of my Champions League standard ban tor)
AFKA - I'm assuming you singled me out because I liked your post? I totally agree with you and there's no ambiguity for me - KM said all of that as well as a stable and competitive football club to go with it. I believe we are stable (relative term but infinitely more stable than under the previous regime) and it would appear lessons are being learned regarding what is required to make a competitive team.
Could communication be better? - well yes of course it could but it's better than with Slater/Jiminez/Cash and RD aint about to get all communicative despite what the Trust might plan. I also don't actually buy the argument that our Charlton is falling apart at the seems. Others might but sobeit - we are never going to agree on everything!
Don't know @rikofold, but i'll be honest with you, that's pretty much all i personally ever want from it all.
Whether that is offered a wordy cop-out argument to disguise an ultimate lack of ambition, well that's open for interpretation.
Yes, that is part of what I want.
But that vision is very passive on the fans part. Turn up, enjoy, go home. Don't ask questions, "accept" what you are given, be happy.
Only this isn't Arsenal or even Fulham where there is going to be a large tourist element of the support.
Rightly or wrongly people invest emotionally in their football clubs and so want a more emotional event than provided by going to see a film or watching a game on TV in the pub.
Comments
But what you need to understand is that RD is not RM. He has completely different ethos in the way he intends to run the Club. He's not a wealthy fan who's become 'addickted'. He sees CAFC as a tool to raise his profile and possibly make some money in the long run.
I wouldn't be surprised if, that by the end of this season, his total outlay will be close to £40m.
Think I know which approach I prefer. Whichever is most likely for success.
Btw
How many is a tranche?
And how many agent payments would that lost revenue account for?
Won't fans return as performance on the pitch improves?
The communication with fans involved various fan groups. Since I was in Prague from 1993, I obviously wasn't around for them, other than the launch of the share issue, where obviously the board shared quite a lot of detail. My main understanding of the Club's business direction came from other fans, some of whom were appointed to play that role, if you recall.
KM has insisted that she is the conduit for communication with RD. An organisation now carrying the mandate of around 1200 paid members, 1700 free members and 150 or so non-members at the public meeting have asked her for a conversation. Repeatedly. She's declined with two main reasons given: she's already told the fans enough about the strategy, and she doesn't want to favour one supporters group over another.
Well this thread shows how much we fans understand about the strategy. Pretty much nothing.
And in terms of favouring one supporters group over another, so far KM's arranged to meet with the Fans' Forum, EK Addicks, Bromley Addicks, the VIPs, the Junior Council and a 15 year old boy. One might conclude that suggests favour of just about any fans group over the Supporters' Trust. A strange approach when you're encouraging people to buy season tickets so that we can work for a "better future together".
For me, though, the resistance is more about the challenge of how to control a conversation with a group likely to ask some difficult questions. But that's not what a conversation is about is it, one person controlling it? It's about two sides listening to each other and talking together - particularly when one is consistently saying, talk to us because we think we can help you succeed.
If the club really do want a better future together, sidelining a group that numbers around a third of your season ticket base seems an odd place to start.
Secondly, we have met before, but I obviously didn't make any impression on you.
Neither it would appear have the issues I've raised in this thread.
But you carry banging on about how RD intends to finance his club.
You'll be asking about his 'exit policy' next.
We think it would be helpful, since if we could understand his strategy better we could help explain to the wider group of supporters. That's how it was done in the past, successfully
Why? Did you demand the same from Cash?
Nobody really knows for sure but it seems Cash was gone before the Trust was formed
Have I, as is often the case, got that wrong?
Only in the sense that none of us really know about Cash's involvement. The Trust of course needed time to build itself up before seeking a dialogue with anyone on the Board.
Would you be happy with more communications just with KM?
I think the answer to that is that fans at Woolwich mandated us to seek more dialogue, and Katrien has said that she is the person who speaks for the owner. So yes, more communication with her would take us closer to an understanding of RD's strategy. But as I said somewhere else on CL, the voice that counts is that of the majority owner. That's not a slight on Katrien. In the old days it was the guys with equity who talked to the fans. Not Peter Varney. Personally I've always been genuinely interested to understand RD, and not just on football, but he apparently has a difficult time talking openly to anyone of the public he nevertheless seeks to influence. I'm talking about his involvement in politics. The thing with politics is, you have to engage, and this is what he seems to find difficult. BTW we should have a Belgian interview with him on the Trust website soon, if we can find someone to translate it from the Dutch.
It's clear that Kevin Cash was an investor backing Tony Jiminez. That's one obvious reason why no one queried his "personal" involvement in the Club.
If you can't understand why so many have anxiety's about the future of the Club, then get on with it and leave the "thinking" to the big kids.
Thanks.
I, and most of the fans I talk to are anxious about the direction of the Club. I just believe the current approach by the Trust/G21 is confrontational and not helpful.
Times have changed, the owner has changed, but the same dogma is being trotted out time and time again. Hence the impasse.
But since you feel so strongly about it I'll leave this particular discussion to you to moderate.
That will do for starters.
The original post is an attempt to open dialogue. To start afresh for the benefit of hopefully everyone. It is an attempt to wipe the slate clean and commence building partnerships between the owner, his representatives (as they are the conduit) and us the fans.
However, with all the other threads out there for you to post on, you decide that this is the one to raise your five ludicrous demands of an owner who has already told you to mind your own business.
I get the idea. You want Roland to tell you everything from his marketing strategy to his inside leg measurement.
All I want is to improve communications and show the Executive that we can work with them and the opening post is my feeble attempt at trying to do that by building bridges rather than burning them.
But then you decided this sort of conciliatory post wasn't part of the agenda you clearly have, so you hi-jacked it
"Our aim has always been since we came here to create a stable and competitive Championship club. Apart from that, it’s a vision of the owner - like he does with his other clubs - that a football club becomes a gathering point where you meet your friends and family and have a good time. You enjoy the football, you have a beer and a laugh and you go home with a good feeling.”
I wonder if the owner asked any of us if we'd prefer our engagement with the club to be reduced to a Saturday afternoon social?
Whether that is offered a wordy cop-out argument to disguise an ultimate lack of ambition, well that's open for interpretation.
meet your friends and family and have a good time - well, apart from the bad games, what is wrong with that?
enjoy the football - yup
have a beer and a laugh - yup
go home with a good feeling - perfect
As I have continually stated, I support the pursuit of dialogue, but the above statement, simplistic or not, whether you believe it or not, suits most football fans, not just Charlton
No one enjoys their beer, friends, or jokes when the game and the team is failing (apart from my crew who get the benefits of my Champions League standard ban tor)
Could communication be better? - well yes of course it could but it's better than with Slater/Jiminez/Cash and RD aint about to get all communicative despite what the Trust might plan. I also don't actually buy the argument that our Charlton is falling apart at the seems. Others might but sobeit - we are never going to agree on everything!
But that vision is very passive on the fans part. Turn up, enjoy, go home. Don't ask questions, "accept" what you are given, be happy.
Only this isn't Arsenal or even Fulham where there is going to be a large tourist element of the support.
Rightly or wrongly people invest emotionally in their football clubs and so want a more emotional event than provided by going to see a film or watching a game on TV in the pub.