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.
Firstly Roger Alwen is long gone from the Board.
Secondly the role became free and two supporters applied for and were invited to attend. I thought my professional experience would be of some use in representing fellow supporters. I believe I have helped to achieve some positive outcomes.
Thirdly, I'm not 'attacking' the Trust. My queries about the direction of both the Trust and the raisin d'être of the G21 have met with a great deal of hostility from some well respected fans on CL, but the repeated questions I ask get thrown deflected; often sending threads off at a tangent.
Fourth, I do not depend on the support of the Club. I'm there as a critical friend and soften ask pertinent and difficult questions. the support I get is from LBG who chair the group. My only involvement is at the quarterly meetings, confirming minutes and writing a couple of safety items for the programme.
I repeat, no information has been asked for or given about anybody personally. So stop posting this about me Airman. My position is to represent fans in H&S issues and not act as a defender of the club.
Why would I personally pass you a snippet of information that you subsequently used in the next VOTV if that was the case?
And as for three posters, who were all on line last night but couldn't be bothered to respond then, yet manage to post attacking messages against me within twenty minutes of each other this morning, suddenly all wanting to hear what I have to say but off this forum, I say just read and respond to my posts and PMs.
And Prague, get a sense of humour FFS and stop reading subliminal messages in everything I post. The cartoon was a joke and I expect the vast majority of people saw it as just that.
Sorry AFKA, I really have tried to keep off this thread today.
Is Airman now somehow involved formally with The Trust ? His stance seems to have changed from the position of setting up a splinter group which was going to meet with KM as I remember.
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.
I don't have any issues with it. My own view is that the results allow a breathing space for all parties.
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)
It's a phrase that was used by various folk during the public meeting. It probably is a bit open, but I think one of the speakers mentioned that the club's engagement with supporters is currently on their own terms. That is, they decide when it happens, make sure they have a degree of control over the conversation and the arising messages. The FF, the VIP's meeting and the vid with the 15 year old are examples, and there are more.
I'm intentionally not referring to supporters clubs' Q&A meetings as they don't intend to represent any kind of formal dialogue, although there is value in them for both sides.
For me (i.e. a personal comment rather than one on behalf of the Trust board), a meaningful dialogue means two parties having an open conversation in which neither praise nor constructive criticism is off the agenda. I think it also demands that it happens at a sufficiently senior level in order that there is genuine influence on the direction of the club. Right now I don't believe the club understands why that's important to supporters, and therefore isn't considering that it might be of mutual benefit.
I can't comment on the frequency of meetings in the past. I believe there were a couple of conversations with KM when RD first took over, but I've been on the Trust board for 6 months now and there's been nothing in that time that could be construed as a meeting with the Supporters' Trust.
Let's not forget this wasn't a Trust meeting - it was a meeting for all supporters, which the Trust facilitated.
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)
We mean, the opportunity to discuss the five main points of concern that supporters have, based on what was said at the meeting, and which are listed in the statement. It's reasonable to say that only the CEO would be able to answer those questions. The regular meetings you refer to happened under the previous regime, but didn't give us access to Jiminez, Slater or Prothero. They were with Bradshaw and Kemsell, and were mainly about how the Trust can help with initiatives to get bums on seats and work towards a "better match day experience". Those discussions have continued with current middle management - that was why were a bit surprised by Katrien's remark implying that we refused them. They were and are happening. We suppose she simply misunderstood Barnie's remark that in fact meant that he wasn't getting involved personally because on of the others of us was already managing it.
Hope that explains it sufficiently for you.
(Edit. Just seen at @rikofold comment above. I hope both are helpful!)
Prague I think we've pretty much said the same thing, you've qualified it further with the 5 points of concern which to me would be the start of a conversation.
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.
My position is to represent fans in H&S issues .
Gosh. All these years and I didn't know that somebody represented me on health and safety issues.
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.
My position is to represent fans in H&S issues .
Gosh. All these years and I didn't know that somebody represented me on health and safety issues.
How else do you think you avoid falling over every week?
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.
My position is to represent fans in H&S issues .
Gosh. All these years and I didn't know that somebody represented me on health and safety issues.
How else do you think you avoid falling over every week?
Prague I think we've pretty much said the same thing, you've qualified it further with the 5 points of concern which to me would be the start of a conversation.
Sensible answer to a sensible question expanding on what the statement said.
Clarifies what the Trust is looking for.
Simple really and only what was originally asked for.
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.
My position is to represent fans in H&S issues .
Gosh. All these years and I didn't know that somebody represented me on health and safety issues.
Without a Safety Certificate, there would be no football at The Valley.
Prague I think we've pretty much said the same thing, you've qualified it further with the 5 points of concern which to me would be the start of a conversation.
Sensible answer to a sensible question expanding on what the statement said.
Clarifies what the Trust is looking for.
Simple really and only what was originally asked for.
Yes and that sensible question was posted today at 14.08 CET, so hopefully @cafc999 will be able to speak for himself as to whether he was satisfied with it, and whether he also accepts that his original remark which started this thread was a little less clear and had us scratching our heads as to how we could answer.
Why didn't you ask me yo be more specific yesterday then??
I am posting this on my phone so will read your explanation when I get in tonight and let you know.
The worrying thing with all of this is that we all want the same thing which includes total communication and total transparency. IMHO I do not think that the trust or the club excel at either.
Why didn't you ask me yo be more specific yesterday then??
I am posting this on my phone so will read your explanation when I get in tonight and let you know.
The worrying thing with all of this is that we all want the same thing which includes total communication and total transparency. IMHO I do not think that the trust or the club excel at either.
Why didn't you ask me yo be more specific yesterday then??
I am posting this on my phone so will read your explanation when I get in tonight and let you know.
The worrying thing with all of this is that we all want the same thing which includes total communication and total transparency. IMHO I do not think that the trust or the club excel at either.
Actually (personally speaking) I don't want that, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation (total) - what I would like to see is the club take the supporters a little more seriously in terms of their input at a senior level.
I agree, our comms is far from perfect. Of course we have the excuse of being volunteers doing this in our spare time with really disproportionate time demands on us right now. The club employs a team of communications professionals along with PR consultants. I think I know which I'd be cutting some slack to.
@cafc999 - I don't have the time right now to get into this, but Grapevine49 posted pretty much everything that I think would be a priority to ask in another thread a couple of weeks ago. I'll see if I can dig it out later.
What I will say in passing though is I'd like to see an ongoing dialogue aimed at ensuring the strategic decisions of the club properly aligned to supporter sympathies.
That in itself doesn't demand specifics, but there are some obvious questions now (such as how the network will be used to benefit Charlton, how the club maintains its autonomy, etc).
The club was never run by its supporters - although I do recognise that the board and many employees happened to be supporters - but I'd love to see a club/supporter relationship that is empathetic to the culture that's grown over the past 30 years, allowing for evolving rather than revolutionary change. I believe getting fans, club, players in harmony would have huge benefits all round. And I believe that because it's right there like a beacon in our recent history.
What have I missed anything that I need to get my slippers on and by popcorn for a quick summary of the 2000 word posted that a simple lad can understand
What have I missed anything that I need to get my slippers on and by popcorn for a quick summary of the 2000 word posted that a simple lad can understand
What have I missed anything that I need to get my slippers on and by popcorn for a quick summary of the 2000 word posted that a simple lad can understand
@PragueAddick , I have read and digested what you have said and wish the trust well. However, I cannot see them talking to the trust any time soon despite how many members you have as they own the club.
I get the whole idea about supporters being on he board like in the past but that was then and this is now. Look at Man City for example, their current owner completely revolutionised them and looked what happened. That's just one example and remember football is now a large business whether we like it or not.
Of course, we could just stay the same twee little ol Charlton and have the danger of being left behind.
Not saying everything is great under RD as it is not, but unless we have the funds to purchase a large portion of shares in CAFC then I believe we have no chance under this regime.
@PragueAddick , I have read and digested what you have said and wish the trust well. However, I cannot see them talking to the trust any time soon despite how many members you have as they own the club.
I get the whole idea about supporters being on he board like in the past but that was then and this is now. Look at Man City for example, their current owner completely revolutionised them and looked what happened. That's just one example and remember football is now a large business whether we like it or not.
Of course, we could just stay the same twee little ol Charlton and have the danger of being left behind.
Not saying everything is great under RD as it is not, but unless we have the funds to purchase a large portion of shares in CAFC then I believe we have no chance under this regime.
Onwards and Upwards...
Maybe, but that doesn't mean we (collective "we" the fans) shouldn't hope and try to open the channels of communication wider than they are now. "We" might not succeed and how each of us measures success will be different but still worth a try.
Comments
Secondly the role became free and two supporters applied for and were invited to attend. I thought my professional experience would be of some use in representing fellow supporters. I believe I have helped to achieve some positive outcomes.
Thirdly, I'm not 'attacking' the Trust. My queries about the direction of both the Trust and the raisin d'être of the G21 have met with a great deal of hostility from some well respected fans on CL, but the repeated questions I ask get thrown deflected; often sending threads off at a tangent.
Fourth, I do not depend on the support of the Club. I'm there as a critical friend and soften ask pertinent and difficult questions. the support I get is from LBG who chair the group. My only involvement is at the quarterly meetings, confirming minutes and writing a couple of safety items for the programme.
I repeat, no information has been asked for or given about anybody personally. So stop posting this about me Airman. My position is to represent fans in H&S issues and not act as a defender of the club.
Why would I personally pass you a snippet of information that you subsequently used in the next VOTV if that was the case?
And as for three posters, who were all on line last night but couldn't be bothered to respond then, yet manage to post attacking messages against me within twenty minutes of each other this morning, suddenly all wanting to hear what I have to say but off this forum, I say just read and respond to my posts and PMs.
And Prague, get a sense of humour FFS and stop reading subliminal messages in everything I post. The cartoon was a joke and I expect the vast majority of people saw it as just that.
Sorry AFKA, I really have tried to keep off this thread today.
Is Airman now somehow involved formally with The Trust ? His stance seems to have changed from the position of setting up a splinter group which was going to meet with KM as I remember.
Does the new Trust Chairman post on here ?
Was there some mention of a beer?
I'm intentionally not referring to supporters clubs' Q&A meetings as they don't intend to represent any kind of formal dialogue, although there is value in them for both sides.
For me (i.e. a personal comment rather than one on behalf of the Trust board), a meaningful dialogue means two parties having an open conversation in which neither praise nor constructive criticism is off the agenda. I think it also demands that it happens at a sufficiently senior level in order that there is genuine influence on the direction of the club. Right now I don't believe the club understands why that's important to supporters, and therefore isn't considering that it might be of mutual benefit.
I can't comment on the frequency of meetings in the past. I believe there were a couple of conversations with KM when RD first took over, but I've been on the Trust board for 6 months now and there's been nothing in that time that could be construed as a meeting with the Supporters' Trust.
Let's not forget this wasn't a Trust meeting - it was a meeting for all supporters, which the Trust facilitated.
Hope that explains it sufficiently for you.
(Edit. Just seen at @rikofold comment above. I hope both are helpful!)
http://ehssafetynewsamerica.com/2013/04/04/how-you-can-prevent-slips-trips-falls/
Clarifies what the Trust is looking for.
Simple really and only what was originally asked for.
I am posting this on my phone so will read your explanation when I get in tonight and let you know.
The worrying thing with all of this is that we all want the same thing which includes total communication and total transparency. IMHO I do not think that the trust or the club excel at either.
I am posting this on my phone so will read your explanation when I get in tonight and let you know.
The worrying thing with all of this is that we all want the same thing which includes total communication and total transparency. IMHO I do not think that the trust or the club excel at either.
I agree, our comms is far from perfect. Of course we have the excuse of being volunteers doing this in our spare time with really disproportionate time demands on us right now. The club employs a team of communications professionals along with PR consultants. I think I know which I'd be cutting some slack to.
That in itself doesn't demand specifics, but there are some obvious questions now (such as how the network will be used to benefit Charlton, how the club maintains its autonomy, etc).
The club was never run by its supporters - although I do recognise that the board and many employees happened to be supporters - but I'd love to see a club/supporter relationship that is empathetic to the culture that's grown over the past 30 years, allowing for evolving rather than revolutionary change. I believe getting fans, club, players in harmony would have huge benefits all round. And I believe that because it's right there like a beacon in our recent history.
I get the whole idea about supporters being on he board like in the past but that was then and this is now. Look at Man City for example, their current owner completely revolutionised them and looked what happened. That's just one example and remember football is now a large business whether we like it or not.
Of course, we could just stay the same twee little ol Charlton and have the danger of being left behind.
Not saying everything is great under RD as it is not, but unless we have the funds to purchase a large portion of shares in CAFC then I believe we have no chance under this regime.
Onwards and Upwards...
How that is achieved is the hard part.