two questions: did KM offer the Trust another staff member whom they could engage with? did the Trust take her up on this offer?
Yes and yes - but seriously both questions have been answered so many times on this forum and even this thread. I refer you back to AFKA's comment for his view on the appropriateness of that response, and my last comment to understand why we feel there are different levels of engagement needed. Please, let's not keep going back over old ground.
I wasn't trying to go back over old ground, this has been going round in circles and among all that I wasn't sure what was and what wasn't the case.
Seth, I fully understand what the trust wants to be but when you have people from the trust shouting in the street "join the trust and get the belgian out' it kind of ruins your point.
I too have heard this. The same person has also told me at the last two homes games that he wants to see Charlton players playing for the shirt not a bunch of Belgian loanees who don't give a toss. The results seem to have ruined that argument. But what it does is show that this person at least has an agenda against RD regardless of what happens.
Seth, I fully understand what the trust wants to be but when you have people from the trust shouting in the street "join the trust and get the belgian out' it kind of ruins your point.
I have not heard this, but I accept that you have, but 'people'? Or a person? I don't see however why people/a person you heard shouting in the street ruins my point. I have also heard some unsavoury chanting and comments from our support, but that does not invalidate the support as a whole.
Seth, stop clutching at straws and comparing what I and many other people have witnessed to what crowds chant in the ground.
As the post above indicates, it was one of the 4 points on your survey.
Seth, I fully understand what the trust wants to be but when you have people from the trust shouting in the street "join the trust and get the belgian out' it kind of ruins your point.
I have not heard this, but I accept that you have, but 'people'? Or a person? I don't see however why people/a person you heard shouting in the street ruins my point. I have also heard some unsavoury chanting and comments from our support, but that does not invalidate the support as a whole.
Seth, stop clutching at straws and comparing what I and many other people have witnessed to what crowds chant in the ground.
As the post above indicates, it was one of the 4 points on your survey.
What were the other 3 points?
Ask the person who originally posted the comment.
While we are on that subject, what would the trust had done if the majority of people had voted to get RD out?
As a member of The Trust would one of the Trust Board care to explain to me and everyone else why KM offered the Trust another member of staff to speak to and why this person wasn't deemed good enough for The Trust to deal with ??
As a member of The Trust would one of the Trust Board care to explain to me and everyone else why KM offered the Trust another member of staff to speak to and why this person wasn't deemed good enough for The Trust to deal with ??
As someone who isn't a member of the Trust (really ought to get around to that) but has been paying attention, it's been said several times already that the Trust already WERE dealing with the other member of staff.
AFKA you are right, the difference being that Bromley addicts and other supporter groups do not claim to be the voice of every Charlton fan.
IMHO the trust has had good opportunity via the FF and by using the official means of communication (Richard Murray) but have failed to act. The club and the trust are bad as each other (the trusts only saving grace is that they are volunteers and do not work on it full time)
In principle, the trust is a good idea but with the owner being as stubborn as we know he is then it is doomed. Saying that, and as a former member of the trust, I wish them well in the future.
The impression I have is that the Trust wish to influence policy and direct the club, whereas the fans meetings are opportunities to have a question and answer session with the club.
The Trust seem to want to have an exclusive meeting with the club to influence policy, whereas the club have said they will not have an exclusive meeting of this nature with them.
As Rick says the fans Forum is not fit for purpose but KM said in the VIP video she would consider changes to the fans forum - seems to be a bit of an olive branch to me.
It seems to me that the exclusive meeting with the club is another way of "If you first don't succeed, then just bang your head against the wall again! - to mix my metaphors.
As a member of The Trust would one of the Trust Board care to explain to me and everyone else why KM offered the Trust another member of staff to speak to and why this person wasn't deemed good enough for The Trust to deal with ??
As someone who isn't a member of the Trust (really ought to get around to that) but has been paying attention, it's been said several times already that the Trust already WERE dealing with the other member of staff.
That's what i remembered, but the next question is why did the Trust feel that the member of staff was not good enough to continue the dialogue? KM obviously felt that this person would have been able to address the Trust better than she would.
My guess would be that some of the things they wanted to discuss were outside that person's remit. It's a bit of a waste of time asking person A for a meeting, being redirected to person B, and then half the questions you ask get "I can't answer that, you'll need to ask person A" as a reply. But the people actually involved in the meetings would need to answer that.
My guess would be that some of the things they wanted to discuss were outside that person's remit. It's a bit of a waste of time asking person A for a meeting, being redirected to person B, and then half the questions you ask get "I can't answer that, you'll need to ask person A" as a reply. But the people actually involved in the meetings would need to answer that.
Surely you ask the question to the official rep and they pass it on to the relevant person?
As a member of The Trust would one of the Trust Board care to explain to me and everyone else why KM offered the Trust another member of staff to speak to and why this person wasn't deemed good enough for The Trust to deal with ??
As someone who isn't a member of the Trust (really ought to get around to that) but has been paying attention, it's been said several times already that the Trust already WERE dealing with the other member of staff.
That's what i remembered, but the next question is why did the Trust feel that the member of staff was not good enough to continue the dialogue? KM obviously felt that this person would have been able to address the Trust better than she would.
I am a member of the CAST and support their ideals but there are some statements made in the latest circular that perturbs me (as well as the handbags stuff hijacking the Bromley Addicks thread) - do not get me wrong - I am all for a healthy dialogue between the supporters and the club but with statements such as the one below does not make things easier for both parties:
The Supporters’ Trust understands the main areas of concern as being: 1. The club’s apparent lack of interest in meaningful supporter involvement 2. An ongoing erosion of club identity and autonomy 3. A general instability, evidenced by a high turnover of Head Coaches and players 4. Undermining of the Head Coach role 5. An apparent lack of candour from the club
My response: 1. The visits by KM to East Addicks and Bromley Addicks confounds this statement I believe... 2. I cannot see any difference between the current regime and the previous one under the terrible twins and Cash? We never had true autonomy since probably the Supporters Director period and it was the "favoured" board led by RM and other directors that got rid of this post... 3. Instability - yes there was some instability but as recent results have borne this out - in the end it was for the better... 4. Undermining of the Head Coach role - Guy Luzon seem to thrive on this... a question of personalities and how they handle the alleged "interventation" perhaps? 5. I can see the rationale behind this but put it down to the "inexperience" of the current staffing and management within the club administration having thrown out the baby with the water with recent dismissals of loyal club staff perhaps...
I would expect a more constructive dialogue to happen between different supporter groups rather than have each one of our fan groups vying for attention? If the Trust is to represent all fans then it HAS to work with other supporter groups who may have an opposite viewpoint - that is life and I think that the Trust is the best group to start this "unifying" process but to achieve this the Trust HAS to let go of its preconceived views and try to embrace and incorporate other views... Then it would be a really powerful group with a clear mandate to sit down with the CEO or the Board...
Idealistic perhaps but I really do see a need for compromise here...
yes that is right @cafc999 the Trust as a representative group want to have an exclusive meeting with the owner / CEO, the same way that Bromley Addicks tonight want an exclusive meeting with the CEO for its members and not a shared meeting with Maidstone, East Kent, NWKA etc ata neutral venue in Sevenoaks, nor do Bromley want the CEO to reject but offer to send Tina from the office to speak to them instead. Rightly so on all counts. Its vital that the CEO reaches out to as many of these types as she can.
I can't for like of me understand why people continue want to outright hammer them, or just as bad, continually chip away in negative sense. No group of volunteers is ever perfect, nor will it ever fully allign with everyone's viewpoint. When it is wide off the mark (as it has been on occassions in the past), the majority of people have clearly make that known.
But these things only exist through the general support of people, and the energy of those prepared to step up, put the work in, and in doing so put themselves up as a target. If all the work only ever results in criticism, snipes or sly digs, that energy soon seeps away and it becomes draining. The result is pople either walk away or contribute less.
I've not always been a fan of everything the Trust as a board have tried to involve themselves in (everything!), or the way they have approached other things (too aggressive, too PR), but I accept as a new and quickly growing group it was always going to make mistakes. But come on, it seems to have evolved a lot from those early days, for a volunteer group they have got themselves hugely organised and structured, through real fans like me and you.
Can they help achieve anything by engaging with KM or RD? Who knows.
But there's got to be a time surely the digs stop and people give them a break?
AFKA where I would nit-pick with this comment is that I'm not aware that the Trust's requests for meetings are for all their (or even a reasonable number of) members to attend.
If I'm wrong about that then I take it back but if I'm correct then they are not asking for the same thing at all and it's a little unfair to compare them, I think.
Comments
I too have heard this. The same person has also told me at the last two homes games that he wants to see Charlton players playing for the shirt not a bunch of Belgian loanees who don't give a toss. The results seem to have ruined that argument. But what it does is show that this person at least has an agenda against RD regardless of what happens.
While we are on that subject, what would the trust had done if the majority of people had voted to get RD out?
The survey is closed and no, I can't remember
The Trust seem to want to have an exclusive meeting with the club to influence policy, whereas the club have said they will not have an exclusive meeting of this nature with them.
As Rick says the fans Forum is not fit for purpose but KM said in the VIP video she would consider changes to the fans forum - seems to be a bit of an olive branch to me.
It seems to me that the exclusive meeting with the club is another way of "If you first don't succeed, then just bang your head against the wall again! - to mix my metaphors.
trust chair asks for strategic discussion due to serious concerns
Is told nothing more to add
Is offered an operational meeting about boosting season tickets - that is already being attended by another officer
Trust chair declines
The Supporters’ Trust understands the main areas of concern as being:
1. The club’s apparent lack of interest in meaningful supporter involvement
2. An ongoing erosion of club identity and autonomy
3. A general instability, evidenced by a high turnover of Head Coaches and players
4. Undermining of the Head Coach role
5. An apparent lack of candour from the club
My response:
1. The visits by KM to East Addicks and Bromley Addicks confounds this statement I believe...
2. I cannot see any difference between the current regime and the previous one under the terrible twins and Cash? We never had true autonomy since probably the Supporters Director period and it was the "favoured" board led by RM and other directors that got rid of this post...
3. Instability - yes there was some instability but as recent results have borne this out - in the end it was for the better...
4. Undermining of the Head Coach role - Guy Luzon seem to thrive on this... a question of personalities and how they handle the alleged "interventation" perhaps?
5. I can see the rationale behind this but put it down to the "inexperience" of the current staffing and management within the club administration having thrown out the baby with the water with recent dismissals of loyal club staff perhaps...
I would expect a more constructive dialogue to happen between different supporter groups rather than have each one of our fan groups vying for attention? If the Trust is to represent all fans then it HAS to work with other supporter groups who may have an opposite viewpoint - that is life and I think that the Trust is the best group to start this "unifying" process but to achieve this the Trust HAS to let go of its preconceived views and try to embrace and incorporate other views... Then it would be a really powerful group with a clear mandate to sit down with the CEO or the Board...
Idealistic perhaps but I really do see a need for compromise here...
If I'm wrong about that then I take it back but if I'm correct then they are not asking for the same thing at all and it's a little unfair to compare them, I think.