fair point Greenie, and i generally agree. Though had those new recruits all been foreign i still think we would be just as happy / relieved as we mainly are now.
Also just to clarify: when a new statement or article is posted on the Trust website, it automatically is promoted via Trust Twitter and Facebook, but is not always posted in CL. It takes a person to do that - often that was Barnie. With hindsight, one of us should have linked it on here yesterday but we do not always do that as we respect CL's neutrality or maybe we just forgot ;-)
If fans vote with their feet by not renewing and attendances dwindle despite the efforts of the club then I suspect that KM and the club will be reluctantly brought to the table. However. Fans are as posted earlier ever so fickle and should things start to look bright on the pitch then 90% of them will pitch up without the slightest criticism or even thought of the clubs level of engagement with the fans.
It doesn't mean that CASTrust shouldn't continue to seek out dialogue wherever and whenever it can.
But it's what's on the pitch that matters. Winning matches, playing entertaining football, that is what attracts crowds to games, not having dialogue with the owner. In an ideal world we'd have both, but most of the anger was generated by the terrible results, and after 5 wins in 6, playing better football and what seems to be excellent team spirit on the pitch, there is an air of quiet optimism around...
fair point Greenie, and i generally agree. Though had those new recruits all been foreign i still think we would be just as happy / relieved as we mainly are now.
Ha, yes I agree, but I seem to remember the player demographic that was constantly bandied about was British players with Championship experience.
fair point Greenie, and i generally agree. Though had those new recruits all been foreign i still think we would be just as happy / relieved as we mainly are now.
Ha, yes I agree, but I seem to remember the player demographic that was constantly bandied about was British players with Championship experience.
Johnson, Watt, Eagles, Diarra (British experience) and the return of Henderson. No coincidence our form has picked up with those guys available.
If fans vote with their feet by not renewing and attendances dwindle despite the efforts of the club then I suspect that KM and the club will be reluctantly brought to the table. However. Fans are as posted earlier ever so fickle and should things start to look bright on the pitch then 90% of them will pitch up without the slightest criticism or even thought of the clubs level of engagement with the fans.
It doesn't mean that CASTrust shouldn't continue to seek out dialogue wherever and whenever it can.
But it's what's on the pitch that matters. Winning matches, playing entertaining football, that is what attracts crowds to games, not having dialogue with the owner. In an ideal world we'd have both, but most of the anger was generated by the terrible results, and after 5 wins in 6, playing better football and what seems to be excellent team spirit on the pitch, there is an air of quiet optimism around...
It really isn't that simple. Did you see the gaps at the sold out Huddersfield game? Despite being in a great run, there were an awful lot of season ticket holders not there. They've complained they don't feel included by the club, that it's not 'theirs' any more. Time tell, but I fear there is a wake up call coming coming. Hope I'm worrying unnecessarily, but my gut feel is that the club have yet to properly understand their market.
If fans vote with their feet by not renewing and attendances dwindle despite the efforts of the club then I suspect that KM and the club will be reluctantly brought to the table. However. Fans are as posted earlier ever so fickle and should things start to look bright on the pitch then 90% of them will pitch up without the slightest criticism or even thought of the clubs level of engagement with the fans.
It doesn't mean that CASTrust shouldn't continue to seek out dialogue wherever and whenever it can.
But it's what's on the pitch that matters. Winning matches, playing entertaining football, that is what attracts crowds to games, not having dialogue with the owner. In an ideal world we'd have both, but most of the anger was generated by the terrible results, and after 5 wins in 6, playing better football and what seems to be excellent team spirit on the pitch, there is an air of quiet optimism around...
It really isn't that simple. Did you see the gaps at the sold out Huddersfield game? Despite being in a great run, there were an awful lot of season ticket holders not there. They've complained they don't feel included by the club, that it's not 'theirs' any more. Time tell, but I fear there is a wake up call coming coming. Hope I'm worrying unnecessarily, but my gut feel is that the club have yet to properly understand their market.
My impression is that our situation in the 'golden years' between the early 90s and late 2000s was fairly unique, and not something that will be repeated. How many current PL clubs have a similar closeness between owners and fans?
If fans vote with their feet by not renewing and attendances dwindle despite the efforts of the club then I suspect that KM and the club will be reluctantly brought to the table. However. Fans are as posted earlier ever so fickle and should things start to look bright on the pitch then 90% of them will pitch up without the slightest criticism or even thought of the clubs level of engagement with the fans.
It doesn't mean that CASTrust shouldn't continue to seek out dialogue wherever and whenever it can.
But it's what's on the pitch that matters. Winning matches, playing entertaining football, that is what attracts crowds to games, not having dialogue with the owner. In an ideal world we'd have both, but most of the anger was generated by the terrible results, and after 5 wins in 6, playing better football and what seems to be excellent team spirit on the pitch, there is an air of quiet optimism around...
It really isn't that simple. Did you see the gaps at the sold out Huddersfield game? Despite being in a great run, there were an awful lot of season ticket holders not there. They've complained they don't feel included by the club, that it's not 'theirs' any more. Time tell, but I fear there is a wake up call coming coming. Hope I'm worrying unnecessarily, but my gut feel is that the club have yet to properly understand their market.
My impression is that our situation in the 'golden years' between the early 90s and late 2000s was fairly unique, and not something that will be repeated. How many current PL clubs have a similar closeness between owners and fans?
Also just to clarify: when a new statement or article is posted on the Trust website, it automatically is promoted via Trust Twitter and Facebook, but is not always posted in CL. It takes a person to do that - often that was Barnie. With hindsight, one of us should have linked it on here yesterday but we do not always do that as we respect CL's neutrality or maybe we just forgot ;-)
Fair enough but that does rather contradict your fellow board members' statement
No one elected him as it isn't an elected position.
His professional knowledge and qualifications as an engineer and H + S expert, as well as being a ST holder and away traveller, make him ideal for the role.
No one elected him as it isn't an elected position.
His professional knowledge and qualifications as an engineer and H + S expert, as well as being a ST holder and away traveller, make him ideal for the role.
Thanks. As you may recall, there was a stand-off 20 years ago because I served on the safety committee as secretary of CASC and Roger Alwen decided that he didn't like that. It was certainly a representative position decided democratically then. The value in the role is partly in having a lay person not an expert, although it obviously wouldn't interest everybody.
My point is rather that he (and you) spend a lot of time attacking the trust, but you both do so having positions that appear to depend on the support of the club, in your own case through your involvement with the museum. I've challenged Addickted before because he was using information provided by staff against me.
That doesn't mean what either of you say about the trust is not fair comment, it just seems to me important for others to be able to consider the possibility that your views may be coloured by your own relationship with the club.
No one elected him as it isn't an elected position.
His professional knowledge and qualifications as an engineer and H + S expert, as well as being a ST holder and away traveller, make him ideal for the role.
Thanks. As you may recall, there was a stand-off 20 years ago because I served on the safety committee as secretary of CASC and Roger Alwen decided that he didn't like that. It was certainly a representative position decided democratically then. The value in the role is partly in having a lay person not an expert, although it obviously wouldn't interest everybody.
My point is rather that he (and you) spend a lot of time attacking the trust, but you both do so having positions that appear to depend on the support of the club, in your own case through your involvement with the museum. I've challenged Addickted before because he was using information provided by staff against me.
That doesn't mean what you say about the trust is not fair comment, it just seems to me important for others to be able to consider the possibility that your views may be coloured by your own relationship with the club.
So now that Trust doesn't want to explain or expand on its own statement following the public meeting and has been questioned on that the response is to attack the integrity of those asking the questions.
No one elected him as it isn't an elected position.
His professional knowledge and qualifications as an engineer and H + S expert, as well as being a ST holder and away traveller, make him ideal for the role.
Thanks. As you may recall, there was a stand-off 20 years ago because I served on the safety committee as secretary of CASC and Roger Alwen decided that he didn't like that. It was certainly a representative position decided democratically then. The value in the role is partly in having a lay person not an expert, although it obviously wouldn't interest everybody.
My point is rather that he (and you) spend a lot of time attacking the trust, but you both do so having positions that appear to depend on the support of the club, in your own case through your involvement with the museum. I've challenged Addickted before because he was using information provided by staff against me.
That doesn't mean what you say about the trust is not fair comment, it just seems to me important for others to be able to consider the possibility that your views may be coloured by your own relationship with the club.
So now that Trust doesn't want to explain or expand on its own statement following the public meeting and has been questioned on that the response is to attack the integrity of those asking the questions.
Beyond Parody
I haven't even read the trust statement and I certainly don't speak for it, so if it is a response it's not from them. It's more of an observation based on your persistent criticism of the trust over a long period, which has always appeared to me at least to be informed by a personal agenda.
No one elected him as it isn't an elected position.
His professional knowledge and qualifications as an engineer and H + S expert, as well as being a ST holder and away traveller, make him ideal for the role.
Thanks. As you may recall, there was a stand-off 20 years ago because I served on the safety committee as secretary of CASC and Roger Alwen decided that he didn't like that. It was certainly a representative position decided democratically then. The value in the role is partly in having a lay person not an expert, although it obviously wouldn't interest everybody.
My point is rather that he (and you) spend a lot of time attacking the trust, but you both do so having positions that appear to depend on the support of the club, in your own case through your involvement with the museum. I've challenged Addickted before because he was using information provided by staff against me.
That doesn't mean what you say about the trust is not fair comment, it just seems to me important for others to be able to consider the possibility that your views may be coloured by your own relationship with the club.
So now that Trust doesn't want to explain or expand on its own statement following the public meeting and has been questioned on that the response is to attack the integrity of those asking the questions.
Beyond Parody
I haven't even read the trust statement and I certainly don't speak for it, so if it is a response it's not from them. It's more of an observation based on your persistent criticism of the trust over a long period, which has always appeared to me at least to be informed by a personal agenda.
Don't you see the irony that you yourself have constantly been attacked (unfairly IMHO) as being a bitter ex-employee, having an agenda, leading a personal vendetta and yet you post the above?
Airman Brown where was the vocal criticism of the club and owners from you when curbishley left and we were horrendously mismanaged resulting in entering the red, threats of administration, redundancies and shambles on the pitch?
As per Airman Brown's comment there are people playing games and representing interests but that is all the more reason for Trust board members NOT to react on a message board.
Either a fan has a valid point or they're being a bit of a Troll but this daily interaction undermines the professionalism and inclusiveness of the Trust. And that isn't going to assist with a club engagement, is it?
I really think it would help if trust board members took their thoughts offline and simply produced measured statements from time to time.
No one elected him as it isn't an elected position.
His professional knowledge and qualifications as an engineer and H + S expert, as well as being a ST holder and away traveller, make him ideal for the role.
Thanks. As you may recall, there was a stand-off 20 years ago because I served on the safety committee as secretary of CASC and Roger Alwen decided that he didn't like that. It was certainly a representative position decided democratically then. The value in the role is partly in having a lay person not an expert, although it obviously wouldn't interest everybody.
My point is rather that he (and you) spend a lot of time attacking the trust, but you both do so having positions that appear to depend on the support of the club, in your own case through your involvement with the museum. I've challenged Addickted before because he was using information provided by staff against me.
That doesn't mean what you say about the trust is not fair comment, it just seems to me important for others to be able to consider the possibility that your views may be coloured by your own relationship with the club.
So now that Trust doesn't want to explain or expand on its own statement following the public meeting and has been questioned on that the response is to attack the integrity of those asking the questions.
Beyond Parody
I haven't even read the trust statement and I certainly don't speak for it, so if it is a response it's not from them. It's more of an observation based on your persistent criticism of the trust over a long period, which has always appeared to me at least to be informed by a personal agenda.
Don't you see the irony that you yourself have constantly been attacked (unfairly IMHO) as being a bitter ex-employee, having an agenda, leading a personal vendetta and yet you post the above?
That's rather my point. People are able to make judgements about what I say because they know I have history with the club, good or bad. I don't think that applies to Addickted, in particular.
As per Airman Brown's comment there are people playing games and representing interests but that is all the more reason for Trust board members NOT to react on a message board.
Either a fan has a valid point or they're being a bit of a Troll but this daily interaction undermines the professionalism and inclusiveness of the Trust. And that isn't going to assist with a club engagement, is it?
I really think it would help if trust board members took their thoughts offline and simply produced measured statements from time to time.
Less is more so I will leave it at that.
I post as a member of the Trust.
I recall a survey, conducted by your good self I believe, which concluded that 30% of the fan base read Charlton Life.
I therefore respectfully disagree that...."this daily interaction".... undermines the INCLUSIVENESS of the Trust.
You have a point re PROFESSIONALISM possibly but only because there is an influential minority who will seize upon any apparent contradiction in the views of Trust Board Members, posted in a personal capacity as members of Charlton Life, and misrepresent them as official Trust policy.
I like to see the likes of Prague engaging on threads irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with what he says.
It means that Trust Board Members, even if only in a personal capacity, are engaging with what, to once again quote your own figure, at least 30% of fans are discussing.
As a member I want to see my Board engaging at the grassroots (as they do) not sitting in a Committee ivory tower.
Airman Brown where was the vocal criticism of the club and owners from you when curbishley left and we were horrendously mismanaged resulting in entering the red, threats of administration, redundancies and shambles on the pitch?
As you presumably well know I was an employee at the time, but as it happens I fully agreed with Curbishley leaving and I'm well aware that the decision was a mutual one, so it would hardly have been something I would have protested about. Poor decisions were then made at boardroom level about football - Henry was on the board as fans' representative in this period, so he was well placed to sound any alarm that was needed.
If you think I was quiet about everything that was going you need to revisit what I posted about Steve Waggott, in particular, but I hardly think me resigning over the various managerial appointments would have been regarded as anything other than a joke - on here or anywhere else.
No one elected him as it isn't an elected position.
His professional knowledge and qualifications as an engineer and H + S expert, as well as being a ST holder and away traveller, make him ideal for the role.
Thanks. As you may recall, there was a stand-off 20 years ago because I served on the safety committee as secretary of CASC and Roger Alwen decided that he didn't like that. It was certainly a representative position decided democratically then. The value in the role is partly in having a lay person not an expert, although it obviously wouldn't interest everybody.
My point is rather that he (and you) spend a lot of time attacking the trust, but you both do so having positions that appear to depend on the support of the club, in your own case through your involvement with the museum. I've challenged Addickted before because he was using information provided by staff against me.
That doesn't mean what you say about the trust is not fair comment, it just seems to me important for others to be able to consider the possibility that your views may be coloured by your own relationship with the club.
So now that Trust doesn't want to explain or expand on its own statement following the public meeting and has been questioned on that the response is to attack the integrity of those asking the questions.
Beyond Parody
I haven't even read the trust statement and I certainly don't speak for it, so if it is a response it's not from them. It's more of an observation based on your persistent criticism of the trust over a long period, which has always appeared to me at least to be informed by a personal agenda.
Don't you see the irony that you yourself have constantly been attacked (unfairly IMHO) as being a bitter ex-employee, having an agenda, leading a personal vendetta and yet you post the above?
That's rather my point. People are able to make judgements about what I say because they know I have history with the club, good or bad. I don't think that applies to Addickted, in particular.
Have you had time to read the Trust statement yet?
It's not that long so it shouldn't take long.
As you were a speaker at and advocate of the public meeting I wonder what you make of it.
I know you're not an officer of the Trust but it wasn't meant to be just Trust meeting.
Airman Brown where was the vocal criticism of the club and owners from you when curbishley left and we were horrendously mismanaged resulting in entering the red, threats of administration, redundancies and shambles on the pitch?
As you presumably well know I was an employee at the time, but as it happens I fully agreed with Curbishley leaving and I'm well aware that the decision was a mutual one, so it would hardly have been something I would have protested about. Poor decisions were then made at boardroom level about football - Henry was on the board as fans' representative in this period, so he was well placed to sound any alarm that was needed.
If you think I was quiet about everything that was going you need to revisit what I posted about Steve Waggott, in particular, but I hardly think me resigning over the various managerial appointments would have been regarded as anything other than a joke - on here or anywhere else.
And the Trust wonder why no one at the club takes them seriously.
Except that's not entirely true is it.
So you except that it is partially true?
No. I disagree that the club are not taking the Trust seriously. The pathetic publicity stunts in the lead up to the public meeting prove that. Richard Murray attending Trust meetings and engaging with the Trust also prove that.
Can the trust clarify what they mean by "meaningful" dialogue when they have had meetings with the club on several occasions in the past (An ex trust board member has even stated publicly on another that they used to meet with the club every 2 months or so)
Comments
Not clear about CLs neutrality as that has never been a factor before.
His professional knowledge and qualifications as an engineer and H + S expert, as well as being a ST holder and away traveller, make him ideal for the role.
My point is rather that he (and you) spend a lot of time attacking the trust, but you both do so having positions that appear to depend on the support of the club, in your own case through your involvement with the museum. I've challenged Addickted before because he was using information provided by staff against me.
That doesn't mean what either of you say about the trust is not fair comment, it just seems to me important for others to be able to consider the possibility that your views may be coloured by your own relationship with the club.
Beyond Parody
As per Airman Brown's comment there are people playing games and representing interests but that is all the more reason for Trust board members NOT to react on a message board.
Either a fan has a valid point or they're being a bit of a Troll but this daily interaction undermines the professionalism and inclusiveness of the Trust. And that isn't going to assist with a club engagement, is it?
I really think it would help if trust board members took their thoughts offline and simply produced measured statements from time to time.
Less is more so I will leave it at that.
I recall a survey, conducted by your good self I believe, which concluded that 30% of the fan base read Charlton Life.
I therefore respectfully disagree that...."this daily interaction".... undermines the INCLUSIVENESS of the Trust.
You have a point re PROFESSIONALISM possibly but only because there is an influential minority who will seize upon any apparent contradiction in the views of Trust Board Members, posted in a personal capacity as members of Charlton Life, and misrepresent them as official Trust policy.
I like to see the likes of Prague engaging on threads irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with what he says.
It means that Trust Board Members, even if only in a personal capacity, are engaging with what, to once again quote your own figure, at least 30% of fans are discussing.
As a member I want to see my Board engaging at the grassroots (as they do) not sitting in a Committee ivory tower.
If you think I was quiet about everything that was going you need to revisit what I posted about Steve Waggott, in particular, but I hardly think me resigning over the various managerial appointments would have been regarded as anything other than a joke - on here or anywhere else.
It's not that long so it shouldn't take long.
As you were a speaker at and advocate of the public meeting I wonder what you make of it.
I know you're not an officer of the Trust but it wasn't meant to be just Trust meeting.