for those of us who remember post Selhurst and pre Premiership it was a time when fans and management worked togther for the betterment of the club. It is now very much us and them, unless you travel home from away games by train, as there is no regular organised communicating between fans and management. For some winning is enough but for others of us we want more which is a proper avenue of communication so that we can all assist in making the whole club, not just the team, a winner. I agree that we would be unrealistic to expect to talk with RD but it should be with KM as it was previously with Richard Murray and Peter Varney.
It is not just on away trains that the club communicate, the infamous East Kent Addicks meeting and Thursday the Bromley Addicks meeting.
Fans Forum is an avenue of communication set up prior to this regime to replace the supporters director. As Airman pointed out it is "potentially not fit for purpose" - my words not his, but KM said (on the video) at the VIP meeting that she would consider changes to its format, so why not go back to her with proposals.
KM is also open to ad hoc discussions with fans - which is laudable.
Murray, apparently, is in dialogue with members of the Trust, so the club has not ignored the Trust.
Is this regime as open to the fans as the old regime in the late 90's early 00's - no, but they are not fans, they are not asking us as fans to buy shares in the club (which for many will later be taken back at no compensation). That time was a "golden period" for the club and we are now back to where we have been in terms of relations with the owners that we have been for most of our history.
for those of us who remember post Selhurst and pre Premiership it was a time when fans and management worked togther for the betterment of the club. It is now very much us and them, unless you travel home from away games by train, as there is no regular organised communicating between fans and management. For some winning is enough but for others of us we want more which is a proper avenue of communication so that we can all assist in making the whole club, not just the team, a winner. I agree that we would be unrealistic to expect to talk with RD but it should be with KM as it was previously with Richard Murray and Peter Varney.
It is not just on away trains that the club communicate, the infamous East Kent Addicks meeting and Thursday the Bromley Addicks meeting.
Fans Forum is an avenue of communication set up prior to this regime to replace the supporters director. As Airman pointed out it is "potentially not fit for purpose" - my words not his, but KM said (on the video) at the VIP meeting that she would consider changes to its format, so why not go back to her with proposals.
KM is also open to ad hoc discussions with fans - which is laudable.
Murray, apparently, is in dialogue with members of the Trust, so the club has not ignored the Trust.
Is this regime as open to the fans as the old regime in the late 90's early 00's - no, but they are not fans, they are not asking us as fans to buy shares in the club (which for many will later be taken back at no compensation).
That said what more were Murray and Varney doing?
Fans on the Safety Advisory Group (ironically it's Addickted) - Still in place
I am sure people will say that people on the trust and other speakers at the meeting had there own agendas
But a number of people on here are anti Trust full stop.
Well I'm not.
Surely an open debate of these issues is healthy? If we don't ask difficult questions how will the Trust board know how we feel? why can't these question be asked without being labelled 'anti Trust'? How can we influence the Trust's direction unless we speak up?
It wasn't a face that said "let's talk", so I moved on to give out the rest of the TNTs before the match started. I'm happy to give it another try when I'm over in April. Maybe AFKA could moderate.
Or maybe Merkel or Hollande can moderate if AFKA has better things to do than broker peace between two football supporters. Jesus wept.
It is delusions of grandeur such as this that turn me right off this whole trust thing.
I am sure people will say that people on the trust and other speakers at the meeting had there own agendas
But a number of people on here are anti Trust full stop.
Well I'm not.
Surely an open debate of these issues is healthy? If we don't ask difficult questions how will the Trust board know how we feel? why can't these question be asked without being labelled 'anti Trust'? How can we influence the Trust's direction unless we speak up?
You want to "influence" the Trust's direction but refuse to pay £5 to join? You think that posting silly jpegs is the way to "ask difficult questions"? .......................
................. Face to face is the best way for people to understand each other's viewpoints, and especially get to know better the person behind the keyboard. @ken from bexley has made you the same offer, please take these offers up.
Yes, I understood perfectly well.
But again you've not commented on your own statement or answered CAFC999's or Addickted's questions.
As an example of how difficult it is to "answer Addickted 's questions" I refer everybody to his ccomment on page 26 of this thread . Doubtless he will say it is just a joke, but I'm sure I'm not alone in regarding it as a gratuitous snipe, which does not really need an answer. As for @CAFC999s question I think we were all puzzled by it. If it appears on the Trust website then by definition it's a statement of the Trust position. "Planning something else"? Well sure, we are not just going to sit on our asses, but what we plan will depend on the way things develop with CAFC. Not knee jerk reactions to every results-led change in mood. I think most Trust members would think that's the right approach.
I am sure people will say that people on the trust and other speakers at the meeting had there own agendas
But a number of people on here are anti Trust full stop.
Well I'm not.
Surely an open debate of these issues is healthy? If we don't ask difficult questions how will the Trust board know how we feel? why can't these question be asked without being labelled 'anti Trust'? How can we influence the Trust's direction unless we speak up?
You want to "influence" the Trust's direction but refuse to pay £5 to join? You think that posting silly jpegs is the way to "ask difficult questions"? .......................
................. Face to face is the best way for people to understand each other's viewpoints, and especially get to know better the person behind the keyboard. @ken from bexley has made you the same offer, please take these offers up.
Yes, I understood perfectly well.
But again you've not commented on your own statement or answered CAFC999's or Addickted's questions.
As an example of how difficult it is to "answer Addickted 's questions" I refer everybody to his ccomment on page 26 of this thread . Doubtless he will say it is just a joke, but I'm sure I'm not alone in regarding it as a gratuitous snipe, which does not really need an answer. As for @CAFC999s question I think we were all puzzled by it. If it appears on the Trust website then by definition it's a statement of the Trust position. "Planning something else"? Well sure, we are not just going to sit on our asses, but what we plan will depend on the way things develop with CAFC. Not knee jerk reactions to every results-led change in mood. I think most Trust members would think that's the right approach.
So why not just say that only in a slightly less passive aggressive way?
Why not just explain and expand on your own agreed statement that you chose not to link to on CL?
Given the amount of debate on here, other sites, the speeches at the meeting and no doubt in private at Trust board meetings it does seem, to me at least and I presume CAFC999, a remarkable short and very quiet statement.
I am sure people will say that people on the trust and other speakers at the meeting had there own agendas
But a number of people on here are anti Trust full stop.
Well I'm not.
Surely an open debate of these issues is healthy? If we don't ask difficult questions how will the Trust board know how we feel? why can't these question be asked without being labelled 'anti Trust'? How can we influence the Trust's direction unless we speak up?
It wasn't a face that said "let's talk", so I moved on to give out the rest of the TNTs before the match started. I'm happy to give it another try when I'm over in April. Maybe AFKA could moderate.
Or maybe Merkel or Hollande can moderate if AFKA has better things to do than broker peace between two football supporters. Jesus wept.
It is delusions of grandeur such as this that turn me right off this whole trust thing.
Sorry you see it that way. Addickted spends a lot of time on here discussing the Trust. I'm saying he might understand us better, and we might understand him better, if we just have chat over a beer. Normal thing people did before the net took over from normal dialogue. I mentioned AFKA because he's great at seeing both sides.
What is a delusion of grandeur in suggesting that two people who both care passionately about CAFC, but seem not to understand each other well, talk to each other?
I am sure people will say that people on the trust and other speakers at the meeting had there own agendas
But a number of people on here are anti Trust full stop.
Well I'm not.
Surely an open debate of these issues is healthy? If we don't ask difficult questions how will the Trust board know how we feel? why can't these question be asked without being labelled 'anti Trust'? How can we influence the Trust's direction unless we speak up?
You want to "influence" the Trust's direction but refuse to pay £5 to join? You think that posting silly jpegs is the way to "ask difficult questions"? .......................
................. Face to face is the best way for people to understand each other's viewpoints, and especially get to know better the person behind the keyboard. @ken from bexley has made you the same offer, please take these offers up.
Yes, I understood perfectly well.
But again you've not commented on your own statement or answered CAFC999's or Addickted's questions.
As an example of how difficult it is to "answer Addickted 's questions" I refer everybody to his ccomment on page 26 of this thread . Doubtless he will say it is just a joke, but I'm sure I'm not alone in regarding it as a gratuitous snipe, which does not really need an answer. As for @CAFC999s question I think we were all puzzled by it. If it appears on the Trust website then by definition it's a statement of the Trust position. "Planning something else"? Well sure, we are not just going to sit on our asses, but what we plan will depend on the way things develop with CAFC. Not knee jerk reactions to every results-led change in mood. I think most Trust members would think that's the right approach.
So why not just say that only in a slightly less passive aggressive way?
Why not just explain and expand on your own agreed statement that you chose not to link to on CL?
Given the amount of debate on here, other sites, the speeches at the meeting and no doubt in private at Trust board meetings it does seem, to me at least and I presume CAFC999, a remarkable short and very quiet statement.
"Is that it?" is the phrase that springs to mind?
Yes, that's it, for now, at this time. And the Trust website is the right place for it. It's one of the things people pay their fiver to fund.
It's time to watch, and listen, ideally informed by dialogue with the people who matter.
Stay out of this Rodders, I've a free beer and curry in the making here :-)
.....
Seriously think the issue is getting away and we are now potentially broaching into a round of point scoring, being clever and focusrd on the personal. Reading from the outside I don't think anyone in different ways are likely to emerge with credit here, personally I'd advise all parties stepping back from this topic as I really don't think there is anymore to gain at this point.
I am sure people will say that people on the trust and other speakers at the meeting had there own agendas
But a number of people on here are anti Trust full stop.
Well I'm not.
Surely an open debate of these issues is healthy? If we don't ask difficult questions how will the Trust board know how we feel? why can't these question be asked without being labelled 'anti Trust'? How can we influence the Trust's direction unless we speak up?
It wasn't a face that said "let's talk", so I moved on to give out the rest of the TNTs before the match started. I'm happy to give it another try when I'm over in April. Maybe AFKA could moderate.
Or maybe Merkel or Hollande can moderate if AFKA has better things to do than broker peace between two football supporters. Jesus wept.
It is delusions of grandeur such as this that turn me right off this whole trust thing.
Sorry you see it that way. Addickted spends a lot of time on here discussing the Trust. I'm saying he might understand us better, and we might understand him better, if we just have chat over a beer. Normal thing people did before the net took over from normal dialogue. I mentioned AFKA because he's great at seeing both sides.
What is a delusion of grandeur in suggesting that two people who both care passionately about CAFC, but seem not to understand each other well, talk to each other?
Same offer to you. How about it?
The Trust is a good cause run by well intentioned people in the main. It is the inflated egos, air of self importance and regular patronising "we know best" and demand the owners meet our requests attitude that often emanates from some of you on here that gets on my tits... not the good cause you stand for. Particularly when there was no such apparent disgruntlement or vociferous rabble rousing when curbishley departed and all his good work turned to shit in a matter of a couple of seasons. Why was it so placid and quiet back then I wonder.
Thanks for the offer but I'll swerve the beer as I'm just posting a viewpoint on a forum as to how I don't warm to certain aspects associated with the Trust nothing more.
I am sure people will say that people on the trust and other speakers at the meeting had there own agendas
But a number of people on here are anti Trust full stop.
Well I'm not.
Surely an open debate of these issues is healthy? If we don't ask difficult questions how will the Trust board know how we feel? why can't these question be asked without being labelled 'anti Trust'? How can we influence the Trust's direction unless we speak up?
It wasn't a face that said "let's talk", so I moved on to give out the rest of the TNTs before the match started. I'm happy to give it another try when I'm over in April. Maybe AFKA could moderate.
Or maybe Merkel or Hollande can moderate if AFKA has better things to do than broker peace between two football supporters. Jesus wept.
It is delusions of grandeur such as this that turn me right off this whole trust thing.
Sorry you see it that way. Addickted spends a lot of time on here discussing the Trust. I'm saying he might understand us better, and we might understand him better, if we just have chat over a beer. Normal thing people did before the net took over from normal dialogue. I mentioned AFKA because he's great at seeing both sides.
What is a delusion of grandeur in suggesting that two people who both care passionately about CAFC, but seem not to understand each other well, talk to each other?
Same offer to you. How about it?
The Trust is a good cause run by well intentioned people in the main. It is the inflated egos, air of self importance and regular patronising "we know best" and demand the owners meet our requests attitude that often emanates from some of you here that gets on my tits... not the good cause you stand for. Particularly when there was no such apparent disgruntlement or vociferous rabble rousing when curbishley departed and all his good work turned to shit in a matter of a couple of seasons. Why was it so placid and quiet back then I wonder.
Thanks for the offer but I'll swerve the beer as I'm just posting a viewpoint on a forum as to how I don't warm to certain aspects associated with the Trust nothing more.
Is this the official direction that the trust is going to make now that they have digested the general meeting from a few weeks ago? Or are they planning something else?
I am not convinced, and nor are most of us to be honest, that RD will sit down and provide the dialogue / communication that is being sought. Communication will derive from KM. However, a number of fans have made it clear that they do not see this as sufficient.
So perhaps we need to look at RD’s background in an attempt to understand his approach.
The man is very intelligent, having studied civil engineering and economics, and ultimately obtaining an MBA.
He is also very passionate in standing up for rights, as was first proved when he participated in student revolts back in 1968.
Subsequent to university, he worked in a number of fields and established a number of very successful companies, including Melexis. This is now a multi-national, multi-cultural company based in 10 different countries on 3 continents - a network that has worked, therefore no surprise that RD believes he can bring this philosophy into other areas such as football. Whether he is right or wrong remains to be proved, but this highlights the background.
It is interesting to note that the company mission was/is to achieve mutual success with their customers, and that they maintain that they are selective in acquisitions and partnerships (more evidence of a network) and that it is quality that matters.
In the early 90’s, RD wrote a book in which he expounded upon economic and political transparancy. His particular focus was upon sustainable development and lowering of expenditure – sound familiar?
Based on this philosophy he formed a political party (now where have I seen that happen before?) under the heading of ‘better seeking for alternatives than doing nothing in apathy’. The football network is nothing if not an alternative, trying to clear a path in a world dominated by Sky money.
Does the above get us any nearer to understanding what it is that RD wants? Maybe not, but it has certainly given me some clarity around his philosophy of life ... and it has heartened me.
I am sure some will accuse me of being naive – not that I could care less – but all of the above makes me feel more positive. I have given my own personal reasons in the past for believing in a network, and having looked at RD’s background, I feel even more optimistic.
I am not convinced, and nor are most of us to be honest, that RD will sit down and provide the dialogue / communication that is being sought. Communication will derive from KM. However, a number of fans have made it clear that they do not see this as sufficient.
So perhaps we need to look at RD’s background in an attempt to understand his approach.
The man is very intelligent, having studied civil engineering and economics, and ultimately obtaining an MBA.
He is also very passionate in standing up for rights, as was first proved when he participated in student revolts back in 1968.
Subsequent to university, he worked in a number of fields and established a number of very successful companies, including Melexis. This is now a multi-national, multi-cultural company based in 10 different countries on 3 continents - a network that has worked, therefore no surprise that RD believes he can bring this philosophy into other areas such as football. Whether he is right or wrong remains to be proved, but this highlights the background.
It is interesting to note that the company mission was/is to achieve mutual success with their customers, and that they maintain that they are selective in acquisitions and partnerships (more evidence of a network) and that it is quality that matters.
In the early 90’s, RD wrote a book in which he expounded upon economic and political transparancy. His particular focus was upon sustainable development and lowering of expenditure – sound familiar?
Based on this philosophy he formed a political party (now where have I seen that happen before?) under the heading of ‘better seeking for alternatives than doing nothing in apathy’. The football network is nothing if not an alternative, trying to clear a path in a world dominated by Sky money.
Does the above get us any nearer to understanding what it is that RD wants? Maybe not, but it has certainly given me some clarity around his philosophy of life ... and it has heartened me.
I am sure some will accuse me of being naive – not that I could care less – but all of the above makes me feel more positive. I have given my own personal reasons in the past for believing in a network, and having looked at RD’s background, I feel even more optimistic.
I've read about a lot of what you've written there too, and I'm very interested in it. I also worked for and work with network companies, so I've always been open about the network (and can't quite work out why some people accused me of being anti-network). The thread I wrote which tried to imagine his answers was based on my limited understanding of his philosophy and business experience.
So definitely you won't have me calling you naive, because I tend to agree with you that there are some positives lurking there - and they came to the surface in Jena, I have to say. We stay close to the Belgian journalist because he gets to talk to RD not just about football, and we are waiting for a copy of his latest interview, which we want to publish.
I was looking to see whether his books have been published in English, but I don't think so. If you do come across them, (or any thing else which sheds light on his thinking) please let me know.
KM seemed perfectly happy to speak to anybody for quite a while. (I remember her coming down to talk to the fans who had helped out at the Museum.)
And then she was verbally attacked by a Neanderthal on a train back from the Watford game. Where she was practically blamed for her tactical incompetence in her team selection.
Perhaps her communication lines would have been better if a few of the other Charlton fans had stood up and fronted the thug up.
She was quite passionate verbally, but a quite petite lady being stood over aggressively by a large man, she was rightfully quite intimidated.
The way I was brought up, you don't treat a woman like that.
Perhaps if a few "gentlemen" had stood up and backed her up, communication would have improved, rather than deteriorated.
@East_Stand_Loopy i think it is fair to say there is zero connection to that event and her reasons for not wishing to meet with the Trust. Equally, and we are going over old ground here and i really don't think we need to go over this topic again, you are incorrect to judge as a neanderthal and thug, the guy in question didn't even swear at her.
I am sure people will say that people on the trust and other speakers at the meeting had there own agendas
But a number of people on here are anti Trust full stop.
Well I'm not.
Surely an open debate of these issues is healthy? If we don't ask difficult questions how will the Trust board know how we feel? why can't these question be asked without being labelled 'anti Trust'? How can we influence the Trust's direction unless we speak up?
You want to "influence" the Trust's direction but refuse to pay £5 to join? You think that posting silly jpegs is the way to "ask difficult questions"? .......................
................. Face to face is the best way for people to understand each other's viewpoints, and especially get to know better the person behind the keyboard. @ken from bexley has made you the same offer, please take these offers up.
Yes, I understood perfectly well.
But again you've not commented on your own statement or answered CAFC999's or Addickted's questions.
As an example of how difficult it is to "answer Addickted 's questions" I refer everybody to his ccomment on page 26 of this thread . Doubtless he will say it is just a joke, but I'm sure I'm not alone in regarding it as a gratuitous snipe, which does not really need an answer. As for @CAFC999s question I think we were all puzzled by it. If it appears on the Trust website then by definition it's a statement of the Trust position. "Planning something else"? Well sure, we are not just going to sit on our asses, but what we plan will depend on the way things develop with CAFC. Not knee jerk reactions to every results-led change in mood. I think most Trust members would think that's the right approach.
So why not just say that only in a slightly less passive aggressive way?
Why not just explain and expand on your own agreed statement that you chose not to link to on CL?
Given the amount of debate on here, other sites, the speeches at the meeting and no doubt in private at Trust board meetings it does seem, to me at least and I presume CAFC999, a remarkable short and very quiet statement.
"Is that it?" is the phrase that springs to mind?
Yes, that's it, for now, at this time. And the Trust website is the right place for it. It's one of the things people pay their fiver to fund.
It's time to watch, and listen, ideally informed by dialogue with the people who matter.
But CL is OK for every other bit of Trust news including the meeting itself? Come on, you must realise that just doesn't stand up when the Trust has used, quite rightly, CL to promote and publicise its other activities?
Is this the official direction that the trust is going to make now that they have digested the general meeting from a few weeks ago? Or are they planning something else?
Nothing wrong with that statement. Sometimes you have to play "The long game" and wait for common sense to prevail or a new CEO to come in.
I agree about the "long game" and have for a long time. But that does rather contradict the idea of the public meeting and the public statements made before or since. Neither does it explain the Trust's sudden reticence on expanding on the statement? Is that a policy not to post it on CL or to comment further? If so then fine but say so.
Regardless and "moving on" I agree about playing the long game. Time for the Trust to stop mentioning the what happened in the old days, 5000 (or is it 3000) networks and prove its value to the Club. That will take time and be less headline grabbing. But jaw jaw is better than war war.
There is a great deal of value, IMHO, in the club and fans (not just the Trust though) communicating, sharing ideas, testing initiatives, publicising events but both sides have to be willing partners and be clear what is and isn't part of the relationship.
Which is why the Fans' Forum, which still includes the Trust, could be a valuable tool. Maybe it needs to be re-vamped and maybe it needs other focus groups to sit alongside it such as already exists with the Safety Advisory Group and could be with a new Club Development focus group to replace Target 40K.
Meanwhile Katrien (on her own) will be doing what dozens of directors and CEO have done over the last twenty years on Thursday which is speak to fans direct, with no pre-prepared questions at Bromley Addicks. Somethings never change.
I am not convinced, and nor are most of us to be honest, that RD will sit down and provide the dialogue / communication that is being sought. Communication will derive from KM. However, a number of fans have made it clear that they do not see this as sufficient.
So perhaps we need to look at RD’s background in an attempt to understand his approach.
The man is very intelligent, having studied civil engineering and economics, and ultimately obtaining an MBA.
He is also very passionate in standing up for rights, as was first proved when he participated in student revolts back in 1968.
Subsequent to university, he worked in a number of fields and established a number of very successful companies, including Melexis. This is now a multi-national, multi-cultural company based in 10 different countries on 3 continents - a network that has worked, therefore no surprise that RD believes he can bring this philosophy into other areas such as football. Whether he is right or wrong remains to be proved, but this highlights the background.
It is interesting to note that the company mission was/is to achieve mutual success with their customers, and that they maintain that they are selective in acquisitions and partnerships (more evidence of a network) and that it is quality that matters.
In the early 90’s, RD wrote a book in which he expounded upon economic and political transparancy. His particular focus was upon sustainable development and lowering of expenditure – sound familiar?
Based on this philosophy he formed a political party (now where have I seen that happen before?) under the heading of ‘better seeking for alternatives than doing nothing in apathy’. The football network is nothing if not an alternative, trying to clear a path in a world dominated by Sky money.
Does the above get us any nearer to understanding what it is that RD wants? Maybe not, but it has certainly given me some clarity around his philosophy of life ... and it has heartened me.
I am sure some will accuse me of being naive – not that I could care less – but all of the above makes me feel more positive. I have given my own personal reasons in the past for believing in a network, and having looked at RD’s background, I feel even more optimistic.
I've read about a lot of what you've written there too, and I'm very interested in it. I also worked for and work with network companies, so I've always been open about the network (and can't quite work out why some people accused me of being anti-network). The thread I wrote which tried to imagine his answers was based on my limited understanding of his philosophy and business experience.
So definitely you won't have me calling you naive, because I tend to agree with you that there are some positives lurking there - and they came to the surface in Jena, I have to say. We stay close to the Belgian journalist because he gets to talk to RD not just about football, and we are waiting for a copy of his latest interview, which we want to publish.
I was looking to see whether his books have been published in English, but I don't think so. If you do come across them, (or any thing else which sheds light on his thinking) please let me know.
You should be able to link to pages 276-280 which discuss RD and politics.
@East_Stand_Loopy i think it is fair to say there is zero connection to that event and her reasons for not wishing to meet with the Trust. Equally, and we are going over old ground here and i really don't think we need to go over this topic again, you are incorrect to judge as a neanderthal and thug, the guy in question didn't even swear at her.
He said Paul Jewell is a good manager. Sorry, that makes him at best a neanderthal thug.
But we only have learnt that as a result of five wins Clem. I wrote before that meeting ' If it proves successful on the pitch, well I’m as fickle as anyone and will I’m sure be won over'. I suspect 90% of us fit into that.
Feel for them a bit. Backed into a corner. Criticised for not coming out with anything, criticised when they come out with something. Whilst we've all got different thoughts on the best way forward, never forget we are all fans.
Ask yourself if the form was flipped and we had lost five out the last six, and battling out the relegation spot with Millwall, what would the percentage be of those up in arms?
If the last month has proved anything, most football fans are very fickle and can be won over in just a few games. The more goodwill you buy, the longer when the tide turns does it take to lose people.
But I don't think its just that....Roland was criticised by many (me included) for not making Championship standard (no pun intended) signings during the transfer and loan windows, he has rectified that and we have a massive change in fortunes using his network model and good quality British players. Its already been well documented the amount of money he has put into the club. So the only flies in the ointment it would seem, is Luzons appointment. I don't suppose anyone cares how he got the job, but thank god he did, and the lack of transparency from club to fans, however if I was Roland and a group of potential 'busybodies' demanded prudent info from my business I would tell them to do one.
Comments
Fans Forum is an avenue of communication set up prior to this regime to replace the supporters director. As Airman pointed out it is "potentially not fit for purpose" - my words not his, but KM said (on the video) at the VIP meeting that she would consider changes to its format, so why not go back to her with proposals.
KM is also open to ad hoc discussions with fans - which is laudable.
Murray, apparently, is in dialogue with members of the Trust, so the club has not ignored the Trust.
Is this regime as open to the fans as the old regime in the late 90's early 00's - no, but they are not fans, they are not asking us as fans to buy shares in the club (which for many will later be taken back at no compensation). That time was a "golden period" for the club and we are now back to where we have been in terms of relations with the owners that we have been for most of our history.
That said what more were Murray and Varney doing?
The Target 40k Focus Group - no longer in place
It is delusions of grandeur such as this that turn me right off this whole trust thing.
Why not just explain and expand on your own agreed statement that you chose not to link to on CL?
Given the amount of debate on here, other sites, the speeches at the meeting and no doubt in private at Trust board meetings it does seem, to me at least and I presume CAFC999, a remarkable short and very quiet statement.
"Is that it?" is the phrase that springs to mind?
What is a delusion of grandeur in suggesting that two people who both care passionately about CAFC, but seem not to understand each other well, talk to each other?
Same offer to you. How about it?
It's time to watch, and listen, ideally informed by dialogue with the people who matter.
.....
Seriously think the issue is getting away and we are now potentially broaching into a round of point scoring, being clever and focusrd on the personal. Reading from the outside I don't think anyone in different ways are likely to emerge with credit here, personally I'd advise all parties stepping back from this topic as I really don't think there is anymore to gain at this point.
Thanks for the offer but I'll swerve the beer as I'm just posting a viewpoint on a forum as to how I don't warm to certain aspects associated with the Trust nothing more.
So perhaps we need to look at RD’s background in an attempt to understand his approach.
The man is very intelligent, having studied civil engineering and economics, and ultimately obtaining an MBA.
He is also very passionate in standing up for rights, as was first proved when he participated in student revolts back in 1968.
Subsequent to university, he worked in a number of fields and established a number of very successful companies, including Melexis. This is now a multi-national, multi-cultural company based in 10 different countries on 3 continents - a network that has worked, therefore no surprise that RD believes he can bring this philosophy into other areas such as football. Whether he is right or wrong remains to be proved, but this highlights the background.
It is interesting to note that the company mission was/is to achieve mutual success with their customers, and that they maintain that they are selective in acquisitions and partnerships (more evidence of a network) and that it is quality that matters.
In the early 90’s, RD wrote a book in which he expounded upon economic and political transparancy. His particular focus was upon sustainable development and lowering of expenditure – sound familiar?
Based on this philosophy he formed a political party (now where have I seen that happen before?) under the heading of ‘better seeking for alternatives than doing nothing in apathy’. The football network is nothing if not an alternative, trying to clear a path in a world dominated by Sky money.
Does the above get us any nearer to understanding what it is that RD wants? Maybe not, but it has certainly given me some clarity around his philosophy of life ... and it has heartened me.
I am sure some will accuse me of being naive – not that I could care less – but all of the above makes me feel more positive. I have given my own personal reasons in the past for believing in a network, and having looked at RD’s background, I feel even more optimistic.
So definitely you won't have me calling you naive, because I tend to agree with you that there are some positives lurking there - and they came to the surface in Jena, I have to say. We stay close to the Belgian journalist because he gets to talk to RD not just about football, and we are waiting for a copy of his latest interview, which we want to publish.
I was looking to see whether his books have been published in English, but I don't think so. If you do come across them, (or any thing else which sheds light on his thinking) please let me know.
KM seemed perfectly happy to speak to anybody for quite a while. (I remember her coming down to talk to the fans who had helped out at the Museum.)
And then she was verbally attacked by a Neanderthal on a train back from the Watford game. Where she was practically blamed for her tactical incompetence in her team selection.
Perhaps her communication lines would have been better if a few of the other Charlton fans had stood up and fronted the thug up.
She was quite passionate verbally, but a quite petite lady being stood over aggressively by a large man, she was rightfully quite intimidated.
The way I was brought up, you don't treat a woman like that.
Perhaps if a few "gentlemen" had stood up and backed her up, communication would have improved, rather than deteriorated.
I agree about the "long game" and have for a long time. But that does rather contradict the idea of the public meeting and the public statements made before or since. Neither does it explain the Trust's sudden reticence on expanding on the statement? Is that a policy not to post it on CL or to comment further? If so then fine but say so.
Regardless and "moving on" I agree about playing the long game. Time for the Trust to stop mentioning the what happened in the old days, 5000 (or is it 3000) networks and prove its value to the Club. That will take time and be less headline grabbing. But jaw jaw is better than war war.
There is a great deal of value, IMHO, in the club and fans (not just the Trust though) communicating, sharing ideas, testing initiatives, publicising events but both sides have to be willing partners and be clear what is and isn't part of the relationship.
Which is why the Fans' Forum, which still includes the Trust, could be a valuable tool. Maybe it needs to be re-vamped and maybe it needs other focus groups to sit alongside it such as already exists with the Safety Advisory Group and could be with a new Club Development focus group to replace Target 40K.
Meanwhile Katrien (on her own) will be doing what dozens of directors and CEO have done over the last twenty years on Thursday which is speak to fans direct, with no pre-prepared questions at Bromley Addicks. Somethings never change.
amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/9053564616/ref=sr_1_1?p=S07P&keywords=roland+duchatelet&ie=UTF8&qid=1425981431#reader_9053564616
So the only flies in the ointment it would seem, is Luzons appointment. I don't suppose anyone cares how he got the job, but thank god he did, and the lack of transparency from club to fans, however if I was Roland and a group of potential 'busybodies' demanded prudent info from my business I would tell them to do one.