I am a member of CAST and congratulate them on the work they have done with regard to the Olympic Stadium. I did not attend the recent AGM as the distance involved made it impractical. However I have read the the piece on the web site entitled " Charlton in disarray - how should we respond?
What a load of fence sitting, it seems that the tone of the article is that the Trust has worked to get dialogue with someone at the club and does not want to jeopardise that work by leading/backing/supporting any direct action against the club. Surely the Trust and it's external advisors, whoever they are, must realise that RD will not talk to any of us and KM is his conduit and she does not acknowledge the history or legacy of longstanding supporters of our club.
From reading CL there is a genuine groundswell of antagonism towards the owners and the Trust should be involved in this rather than sitting on the sidelines ringing their hands and hoping for some dialogue at sometime with someone. So Mr Clarke and your external advisors please get off the fence and do what is necessary and that is to publicise our plight in any legal way possible. After all if the club continues on its downward spiral there will be no club when West Ham move into their new home.
The only way the trust will get more communication with the club, is if and when she resigns as CEO. Then we may have a more understanding Chief Executive who will take on board the fans concerns and speak to the trust on a regular basis.
Do you think she ignores the trust because she wants to, or because that's what she is told to do?
I am a member of CAST and congratulate them on the work they have done with regard to the Olympic Stadium. I did not attend the recent AGM as the distance involved made it impractical. However I have read the the piece on the web site entitled " Charlton in disarray - how should we respond?
What a load of fence sitting, it seems that the tone of the article is that the Trust has worked to get dialogue with someone at the club and does not want to jeopardise that work by leading/backing/supporting any direct action against the club. Surely the Trust and it's external advisors, whoever they are, must realise that RD will not talk to any of us and KM is his conduit and she does not acknowledge the history or legacy of longstanding supporters of our club.
From reading CL there is a genuine groundswell of antagonism towards the owners and the Trust should be involved in this rather than sitting on the sidelines ringing their hands and hoping for some dialogue at sometime with someone. So Mr Clarke and your external advisors please get off the fence and do what is necessary and that is to publicise our plight in any legal way possible. After all if the club continues on its downward spiral there will be no club when West Ham move into their new home.
The only way the trust will get more communication with the club, is if and when she resigns as CEO. Then we may have a more understanding Chief Executive who will take on board the fans concerns and speak to the trust on a regular basis.
Do you think she ignores the trust because she wants to, or because that's what she is told to do?
In my opinion. She wants to.
Maybe, it's a lot easier for me to understand if she's just being told to ignore everyone, in order to cover up what the f they are actually doing.
If it's her personal choice, then she's worse than a puppet, she's a bloody idiot. If people are willing to give up their free time to help you, you don't just say no.
I support what the trust are trying to do, and do feel a bit bad to criticize, but to me it feels like the trust really have an opportunity to make a difference at the moment, and have bottled it by sitting on the fence.
For the first time since RD took over, the vast majority of Charlton fans are on the same page and the vast majority of us want some form of action/protest. Last week's meeting was the ideal time for the trust to take advantage of this and get some form of campaign going.
Instead they are just going to continue to seek communication with Katrien which clearly isn't really working for them.
Shame really as the trust is the body that would give us the best chance of organising an effective protest, whatever it may be.
I’m not sure it’s “fence sitting” if you readthe report (and remember – it’s not a statement of intent, it’s a report on the events of the AGM).
“There was general dismay at the current plight of the club. Lack of a unifying vision; poor managerial appointments; instability and inexperience; alienating public statements, and unwillingness to appreciate the club’s history and its fans”
“Steve Clarke acknowledged that we had clearly been unsuccessful in establishing any sort of commitment to an ongoing participation with supporters on strategic matters”
“We are however now more optimistic as, in discussions with the club in recent weeks, we have been given indications of a thawing in their attitude to the idea of serious dialogue with the Trust. We have little doubt that this is largely because of the current plight of the club but we will nevertheless be pursuing all possible routes over the next few weeks to get this engagement off the ground. In addition the club are setting up a meeting with representatives of various supporters groups to be held in early November. It is the Trust board’s view that, particularly in the light of all the effort over the months to secure dialogue, it would be foolish to jeopardise the opportunity at this late stage”
And for me that last paragraph is the key part. The Trust has been trying to secure dialogue with the club since the Woolwich meeting – for lots of supporters the necessity for dialogue went away when the results turned round – but not for the Trust, that has been a key aim for a long time. Now, and I don’t think I’m being over cynical in saying this, because the results have gone off a cliff and a large part of the supporter base are kicking off the regime seems more amenable to dialogue and it would be ridiculous to not at least explore that option. If it proves to be in vain and nothing is achieved in the next few weeks (say, prior to the Ipswich game) then Steve Clarke, chairman of the Trust, has already begun canvassing ideas (“Steve Clarke asked the meeting for views on how the Trust should respond if, in a few weeks’ time, it found itself no further forward”) for the next step and I think we’d all agree that anything we do needs to be in unity and with a clear aim and purpose rather than some supporters deciding on a stadium boycott, some deciding on a protest, some deciding on a pitch invasion and none of them with clear objectives for their angst.
I support what the trust are trying to do, and do feel a bit bad to criticize, but to me it feels like the trust really have an opportunity to make a difference at the moment, and have bottled it by sitting on the fence.
For the first time since RD took over, the vast majority of Charlton fans are on the same page and the vast majority of us want some form of action/protest. Last week's meeting was the ideal time for the trust to take advantage of this and get some form of campaign going.
Instead they are just going to continue to seek communication with Katrien which clearly isn't really working for them.
Shame really as the trust is the body that would give us the best chance of organising an effective protest, whatever it may be.
I would just like to say that whatever faults I and other individuals who make up the Trust board have, none of us are people who bottle things, or sit on fences. There are plenty of people within the fanbase who have criticised us for being too much the other way . Sometimes they are people who themselves were at Woolwich Town Hall screaming blue murder (see @Curb_It 's post earlier, which summed that up perfectly,thank you, Curb_it ). You've got three ex Valley Party people on the Board, as well as two young people, and we have demonstrated with the Olympic Stadium work that we can take on the political establishment and engage the media, which is not something a lot of people are ready to do. We are not sitting on the fence, but working through the strategy for which we have a mandate. When that strategy is clearly not working, we adopt a different one and seek the mandate for that. Our time frame for assessing that is weeks not months, as @Weegie Addick said. And we are well aware that the Ipswich game is televised. So I would just say to you @Addickforlife, and all other reasonable Charlton fans, please trust us and give us a little more time, before concluding that we are sitting on the fence/failing to show leadership.
The critics of the trust jibe at nearly everything which include:
The cost of membership. The degree of democratic structure. The leadership which is seen as ego driven. The representation numbers, as there are far more fans not in the Trust than in it. The surveys. The fact that they won't get anywhere so is there any point. Working on 'fringe' stuff like the ACV and the Olympic stadium The Stall. The Trust news. The Website. Both the lack of leadership and being led by the nose. The demographic make up of the committee.
That is all off the top of my head.
It reads to me that if some people do something they clearly are putting themselves up to be shot at, and critics who act like professional hecklers have easy targets to put down and despise.
My answer to those critics is to either join, say your piece, get involved. or maybe to do something themselves (which demo's, boycotts, and campaigns are achieving).
I cannot for the life of me see that the Trust is part of some great big conspiracy to somehow make things at Charlton worse.
It is also telling that some non members are kind of saying 'what is the blimmin Trust doing about it then?', but won't help or support in any way.
There is a term passive aggressive which fits the trust critics perfectly. Passive equals doing jack chite. Aggressive equals non stop undermining, often personal.
It is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that there ought to be feedback and criticism of the Trust which one would hope is constructive, and it is especially valid if it comes from members of the Trust, and my experience of the Trust leadership is that they are very willing to listen and absorb criticism.
What is pathetic is the destructive moaning from folk who can't be arsed to do anything more.
During this particular crisis it would be great if somehow we can put infighting on hold and try to see the bigger picture, which is the fundamental change being forced on our club, almost like forced gender re-alignment when we want to remain either male or female.
I support what the trust are trying to do, and do feel a bit bad to criticize, but to me it feels like the trust really have an opportunity to make a difference at the moment, and have bottled it by sitting on the fence.
For the first time since RD took over, the vast majority of Charlton fans are on the same page and the vast majority of us want some form of action/protest. Last week's meeting was the ideal time for the trust to take advantage of this and get some form of campaign going.
Instead they are just going to continue to seek communication with Katrien which clearly isn't really working for them.
Shame really as the trust is the body that would give us the best chance of organising an effective protest, whatever it may be.
I would just like to say that whatever faults I and other individuals who make up the Trust board have, none of us are people who bottle things, or sit on fences. There are plenty of people within the fanbase who have criticised us for being too much the other way . Sometimes they are people who themselves were at Woolwich Town Hall screaming blue murder (see @Curb_It 's post earlier, which summed that up perfectly,thank you, Curb_it ). You've got three ex Valley Party people on the Board, as well as two young people, and we have demonstrated with the Olympic Stadium work that we can take on the political establishment and engage the media, which is not something a lot of people are ready to do. We are not sitting on the fence, but working through the strategy for which we have a mandate. When that strategy is clearly not working, we adopt a different one and seek the mandate for that. Our time frame for assessing that is weeks not months, as @Weegie Addick said. And we are well aware that the Ipswich game is televised. So I would just say to you @Addickforlife, and all other reasonable Charlton fans, please trust us and give us a little more time, before concluding that we are sitting on the fence/failing to show leadership.
I'm really not trying to have a go at the trust, and can appreciate there are some very good people involved. It just seems to me that everyone could recognise that the Ipswich game being on TV gave us a real opportunity to get a message out to RD and also to the media, but the only way we could get a real collective action for the game would have been through the trust organising it.
The meeting the other night surely gave a great opportunity to agree on something and then communicate what this was to be to the wider fan base, but it doesn't seem like anything has happened. A protest/form of action takes time to organise and I'm scared we will miss a real opportunity in front of the Sky cameras.
Anyway as I said I don't intend to criticize even if it sounds like that, and I am appreciative of the work put in by the trust, just feel they may have missed an opportunity.
I support what the trust are trying to do, and do feel a bit bad to criticize, but to me it feels like the trust really have an opportunity to make a difference at the moment, and have bottled it by sitting on the fence.
For the first time since RD took over, the vast majority of Charlton fans are on the same page and the vast majority of us want some form of action/protest. Last week's meeting was the ideal time for the trust to take advantage of this and get some form of campaign going.
Instead they are just going to continue to seek communication with Katrien which clearly isn't really working for them.
Shame really as the trust is the body that would give us the best chance of organising an effective protest, whatever it may be.
I would just like to say that whatever faults I and other individuals who make up the Trust board have, none of us are people who bottle things, or sit on fences. There are plenty of people within the fanbase who have criticised us for being too much the other way . Sometimes they are people who themselves were at Woolwich Town Hall screaming blue murder (see @Curb_It 's post earlier, which summed that up perfectly,thank you, Curb_it ). You've got three ex Valley Party people on the Board, as well as two young people, and we have demonstrated with the Olympic Stadium work that we can take on the political establishment and engage the media, which is not something a lot of people are ready to do. We are not sitting on the fence, but working through the strategy for which we have a mandate. When that strategy is clearly not working, we adopt a different one and seek the mandate for that. Our time frame for assessing that is weeks not months, as @Weegie Addick said. And we are well aware that the Ipswich game is televised. So I would just say to you @Addickforlife, and all other reasonable Charlton fans, please trust us and give us a little more time, before concluding that we are sitting on the fence/failing to show leadership.
I'm really not trying to have a go at the trust, and can appreciate there are some very good people involved. It just seems to me that everyone could recognise that the Ipswich game being on TV gave us a real opportunity to get a message out to RD and also to the media, but the only way we could get a real collective action for the game would have been through the trust organising it.
The meeting the other night surely gave a great opportunity to agree on something and then communicate what this was to be to the wider fan base, but it doesn't seem like anything has happened. A protest/form of action takes time to organise and I'm scared we will miss a real opportunity in front of the Sky cameras.
Anyway as I said I don't intend to criticize even if it sounds like that, and I am appreciative of the work put in by the trust, just feel they may have missed an opportunity.
In the end the trust will either get stuck in or it will be marginalised by events. The purpose of the meeting and its timing from the club's perspective will be to defer any action. We are stuck with Karel Fraeye until at least Saturday and that - i.e. the football - is the biggest immediate driver of protest anyway. If the team fails to win either match then Fraeye will have to go and it is possible even the Belgians understand that - regardless it will become the overriding issue.
Protesting is needed for one purpose and that is to demonstrate the strength of feeling. Protesting is necessary for that reason, but has no other purpose and will achieve nothing else. If you think it will make RD sell up and go, fine, but I don't think that has much chance of success and I doubt if the Trust board or many Trust members do.
If your objective is nothing other than disrupt the club to such a degree that RD packs his bags and sells up, I don't think you need the Trust, you just need a dedicated protest group of like minded people. Bit like an unofficial strike where the people who will have to eventually agree a settlement are not the ones supporting the action.
If you think there should be dialogue between fans and the club (whoever is the owner) where views can be exchanged frankly, the Trust does have a role to play. It is not sitting on the fence, it is simply acknowledging that it is not the body to organise protest just for the sake of protesting and undermine its far more valuable potential as a mechanism to force change by force of argument.
How would the Trust have credibility if it supported burning down the West Stand and the next day expected to be able to sit down and be taken seriously by the club as a line of communication between the club and fans.
The Trust is not set up to fight the battle with force, but by argument. No guarantee of success, and it is not sitting on the fence, it has a clear view of its role and initial objectives. Arguments must be put forward by the Trust and accepted or rejected before it can risk taking action which denies it a working relationship with the club.
The Trust can't have a constitution that changes to meet every different view of what it should be doing. You either accept the constitution and its limitations or you don't, but there is no point in criticising it just because it can't be bent at will to your way of thinking.
I agree as well it is nice what the Trust are doing and it is important to do something but I feel like no matter what we did, it wouldn't really make a difference, the trust reminds me of a Model UN or Model House of Commons from school that is nice, but it doesn't actually lead to anything. It's like a group of people coming together to try and tell Sainsbury's that you want them to change how they do business in their shop, but you are only ever going to shop there, so why would they care? Especially when they don't even want to listen to you in the first place.
The Trust unfortunately is weakest when it needs to be strongest, and strongest when it isn't needed, ie, when we have a dickhead of an owner who doesn't want to listen and co operate, we really need something like the trust, but their powers are then at their weakest, because without the ear of the owners, there is very little you can do (I doubt you can persuade me otherwise but please do try!), and when you have an owner who is really willing to listen, generally they will be the kind of owners who run the club for the good of the fans anyway, so there isn't as much a need for a trust.... Unfortunate but that's how I see it.
There are some people who faced with a dilemma give up and do nothing because they feel the cause is lost and wait for things to happen, and those who believe nothing is impossible if you really want it.
The former probably don't see the point in the Trust.
The former probably don't include Prague who decided he wanted some information he was told he couldn't have it.
Protesting is needed for one purpose and that is to demonstrate the strength of feeling. Protesting is necessary for that reason, but has no other purpose and will achieve nothing else. If you think it will make RD sell up and go, fine, but I don't think that has much chance of success and I doubt if the Trust board or many Trust members do.
If your objective is nothing other than disrupt the club to such a degree that RD packs his bags and sells up, I don't think you need the Trust, you just need a dedicated protest group of like minded people. Bit like an unofficial strike where the people who will have to eventually agree a settlement are not the ones supporting the action.
If you think there should be dialogue between fans and the club (whoever is the owner) where views can be exchanged frankly, the Trust does have a role to play. It is not sitting on the fence, it is simply acknowledging that it is not the body to organise protest just for the sake of protesting and undermine its far more valuable potential as a mechanism to force change by force of argument.
How would the Trust have credibility if it supported burning down the West Stand and the next day expected to be able to sit down and be taken seriously by the club as a line of communication between the club and fans.
The Trust is not set up to fight the battle with force, but by argument. No guarantee of success, and it is not sitting on the fence, it has a clear view of its role and initial objectives. Arguments must be put forward by the Trust and accepted or rejected before it can risk taking action which denies it a working relationship with the club.
The Trust can't have a constitution that changes to meet every different view of what it should be doing. You either accept the constitution and its limitations or you don't, but there is no point in criticising it just because it can't be bent at will to your way of thinking.
I know this is not a good place to start a political debate that is controversial but the IRA managed to get into talks in Ireland despite being involved in some unthinkable acts.
I know you weren't suggesting burning down the West Stand, and I know you realise than nor am I, but sometimes you have to make people take not of you. The Ipswich game might be too close by the time the meeting on the 10th has been discussed among fans. That may or may not have been the reason for the meeting with RM and KM but the fans need to make a statement at some point and if that action doesn't have the Trust leading it then it runs the risk of being seen as apologists for the club.
Do you think she ignores the trust because she wants to, or because that's what she is told to do?
She ignores the trust in the same way that Mussa and duchatelat ignore the trust. They are irrelevant to the great plan. By seeking attention with a mandate from people who are not willing to protest or demonstrate in other high profile ways that they mean business, the trust is easy to ignore. It is only by showing that you have a mandate from a lot of people who are willing to protest, walk away from the turnstiles and highlight the predicament of the club in the media that you get a seat at the negotiating table. The trust is a talking shop with lots of good intentioned people being led by people who do not want confrontation. If the trust actually girded its loins and stood with the protesters and petitioners it might earn a mandate to speak, until then it is an irrelevancy and will be ignored in favour of the soft options of the fans forums which make the current ownership appear as if they are consulting with fans.
As for the comments that it is weeks not months before the Trust decides to act, the issue is now, address it now! The trust has not been invited to participate! He who hesitates is lost.
Do you think she ignores the trust because she wants to, or because that's what she is told to do?
She ignores the trust in the same way that Mussa and duchatelat ignore the trust. They are irrelevant to the great plan. By seeking attention with a mandate from people who are not willing to protest or demonstrate in other high profile ways that they mean business, the trust is easy to ignore. It is only by showing that you have a mandate from a lot of people who are willing to protest, walk away from the turnstiles and highlight the predicament of the club in the media that you get a seat at the negotiating table. The trust is a talking shop with lots of good intentioned people being led by people who do not want confrontation. If the trust actually girded its loins and stood with the protesters and petitioners it might earn a mandate to speak, until then it is an irrelevancy and will be ignored in favour of the soft options of the fans forums which make the current ownership appear as if they are consulting with fans.
As for the comments that it is weeks not months before the Trust decides to act, the issue is now, address it now! The trust has not been invited to participate! He who hesitates is lost.
I agree as well it is nice what the Trust are doing and it is important to do something but I feel like no matter what we did, it wouldn't really make a difference, the trust reminds me of a Model UN or Model House of Commons from school that is nice, but it doesn't actually lead to anything. It's like a group of people coming together to try and tell Sainsbury's that you want them to change how they do business in their shop, but you are only ever going to shop there, so why would they care? Especially when they don't even want to listen to you in the first place.
The Trust unfortunately is weakest when it needs to be strongest, and strongest when it isn't needed, ie, when we have a dickhead of an owner who doesn't want to listen and co operate, we really need something like the trust, but their powers are then at their weakest, because without the ear of the owners, there is very little you can do (I doubt you can persuade me otherwise but please do try!), and when you have an owner who is really willing to listen, generally they will be the kind of owners who run the club for the good of the fans anyway, so there isn't as much a need for a trust.... Unfortunate but that's how I see it.
If Sainsbury's had the level of customer discontent among our supporters they would recognise they had a major problem and come up with a corporate response to address it, because they have no interest in aggravating their customers and would recognise that it must be damaging their business.
This is hard, but it is no harder than reversing John Fyer's position in 1985.
Do you think she ignores the trust because she wants to, or because that's what she is told to do?
She ignores the trust in the same way that Mussa and duchatelat ignore the trust. They are irrelevant to the great plan. By seeking attention with a mandate from people who are not willing to protest or demonstrate in other high profile ways that they mean business, the trust is easy to ignore. It is only by showing that you have a mandate from a lot of people who are willing to protest, walk away from the turnstiles and highlight the predicament of the club in the media that you get a seat at the negotiating table. The trust is a talking shop with lots of good intentioned people being led by people who do not want confrontation. If the trust actually girded its loins and stood with the protesters and petitioners it might earn a mandate to speak, until then it is an irrelevancy and will be ignored in favour of the soft options of the fans forums which make the current ownership appear as if they are consulting with fans.
As for the comments that it is weeks not months before the Trust decides to act, the issue is now, address it now! The trust has not been invited to participate! He who hesitates is lost.
But they have.
We're also not scared of confrontation either - perhaps we kept the Olympic Stadium campaign a bit quiet - but times and places. Let's explore diplomatic solutions first, although I think they probably are running out of time to be fair.
I agree as well it is nice what the Trust are doing and it is important to do something but I feel like no matter what we did, it wouldn't really make a difference, the trust reminds me of a Model UN or Model House of Commons from school that is nice, but it doesn't actually lead to anything. It's like a group of people coming together to try and tell Sainsbury's that you want them to change how they do business in their shop, but you are only ever going to shop there, so why would they care? Especially when they don't even want to listen to you in the first place.
The Trust unfortunately is weakest when it needs to be strongest, and strongest when it isn't needed, ie, when we have a dickhead of an owner who doesn't want to listen and co operate, we really need something like the trust, but their powers are then at their weakest, because without the ear of the owners, there is very little you can do (I doubt you can persuade me otherwise but please do try!), and when you have an owner who is really willing to listen, generally they will be the kind of owners who run the club for the good of the fans anyway, so there isn't as much a need for a trust.... Unfortunate but that's how I see it.
If Sainsbury's had the level of customer discontent among our supporters they would recognise they had a major problem and come up with a corporate response to address it, because they have no interest in aggravating their customers and would recognise that it must be damaging their business.
This is hard, but it is no harder than reversing John Fyer's position in 1985.
That's an interesting remark. To what extent did we, the fans, do that?
First of all we didn't stop him moving us to Selhurst (because we had no credible fans organisation talking to the club or monitoring its business - you and I first met in that appalling Supporters Club meeting, of course.) Secondly we set out on the road back to the Valley when messrs Alwen and Norris came along and took charge of the club. Now you may justifiably argue that the effective sustained protest at Selhurst, led by the creation of the Voice, inspired Alwen and Norris to step in. But without them, we the fans alone could not have got Charlton back to the Valley. Our biggest role (although perhaps not yours personally, that was the creation of the Voice itself earlier) was the Valley Party, but by then we had directors who were on the same side, and our opponent and our argument was clear.
The issue we must always remind ourselves of is, if not Duchatelet, then who? And why would that person or group be any better? Today we have had on CL somebody claiming to know of an offer. If he is a real Charlton fan, why doesn't he contact the Trust, or the Voice or @Henry Irving or @Grapevine49, whoever really, but show us that there is an alternative. The we could consider supporting that alternative. That was the position the Standard fans were in, it appears to be the position the Leeds fans are in, but I don't think we are in that fortunate position. The most credible alternative bid last time round was all about a move to the Peninsula. And it relied on a money man who suddenly found that events exploding in Kiev might be more pressing for him than buying an English second division football club.
as the originator of this thread I am pleased to see that there has been some interesting dialogue. However one thing remains clear to me and that is that through the Trust's inactivity it will miss the chance to organise any activity against the club for the Ipswich match. As it seems the Trust actually understands that the televised match is the best time to show our dissatisfaction don't they also realise that the final time that they can actually communicate en masse with fans is at the Sheffield Match. Not everyone is hooked into social media but if the Trust had a coherent plan and leafleted supporters before the next home match it would spread the word for the Sky match. Sorry PA but it still seems as fence sitting to me and by the time you climb off it in a number of weeks the chance will have gone
as the originator of this thread I am pleased to see that there has been some interesting dialogue. However one thing remains clear to me and that is that through the Trust's inactivity it will miss the chance to organise any activity against the club for the Ipswich match. As it seems the Trust actually understands that the televised match is the best time to show our dissatisfaction don't they also realise that the final time that they can actually communicate en masse with fans is at the Sheffield Match. Not everyone is hooked into social media but if the Trust had a coherent plan and leafleted supporters before the next home match it would spread the word for the Sky match. Sorry PA but it still seems as fence sitting to me and by the time you climb off it in a number of weeks the chance will have gone
Well I'm sorry you still take that viewpoint after all that dialogue.
I'll confine myself to observing that at the meeting last Thursday there were about as many different views about what should be done (in protest terms) as there were speakers.
I'm not trying to score points here, but I'd be interested to know based on the various ideas floating around here for the Ipswich game, which particular one you would support (and therefore would be happy for the Trust, of which you are a member, to support).
Genuine question. And if you ask me the same question, my own preference is to support Spell it Out, because it is visual, and asks for exactly what the Trust has been trying to achieve since the Woolwich meeting. I even had my black and white scarf at the AGM, and offered it to Joe, but he turned it down because its a Swansea scarf and he won't wear another club's scarf.
I agree as well it is nice what the Trust are doing and it is important to do something but I feel like no matter what we did, it wouldn't really make a difference, the trust reminds me of a Model UN or Model House of Commons from school that is nice, but it doesn't actually lead to anything. It's like a group of people coming together to try and tell Sainsbury's that you want them to change how they do business in their shop, but you are only ever going to shop there, so why would they care? Especially when they don't even want to listen to you in the first place.
The Trust unfortunately is weakest when it needs to be strongest, and strongest when it isn't needed, ie, when we have a dickhead of an owner who doesn't want to listen and co operate, we really need something like the trust, but their powers are then at their weakest, because without the ear of the owners, there is very little you can do (I doubt you can persuade me otherwise but please do try!), and when you have an owner who is really willing to listen, generally they will be the kind of owners who run the club for the good of the fans anyway, so there isn't as much a need for a trust.... Unfortunate but that's how I see it.
If Sainsbury's had the level of customer discontent among our supporters they would recognise they had a major problem and come up with a corporate response to address it, because they have no interest in aggravating their customers and would recognise that it must be damaging their business.
This is hard, but it is no harder than reversing John Fyer's position in 1985.
That's an interesting remark. To what extent did we, the fans, do that?
First of all we didn't stop him moving us to Selhurst (because we had no credible fans organisation talking to the club or monitoring its business - you and I first met in that appalling Supporters Club meeting, of course.) Secondly we set out on the road back to the Valley when messrs Alwen and Norris came along and took charge of the club. Now you may justifiably argue that the effective sustained protest at Selhurst, led by the creation of the Voice, inspired Alwen and Norris to step in. But without them, we the fans alone could not have got Charlton back to the Valley. Our biggest role (although perhaps not yours personally, that was the creation of the Voice itself earlier) was the Valley Party, but by then we had directors who were on the same side, and our opponent and our argument was clear.
The issue we must always remind ourselves of is, if not Duchatelet, then who? And why would that person or group be any better? Today we have had on CL somebody claiming to know of an offer. If he is a real Charlton fan, why doesn't he contact the Trust, or the Voice or @Henry Irving or @Grapevine49, whoever really, but show us that there is an alternative. The we could consider supporting that alternative. That was the position the Standard fans were in, it appears to be the position the Leeds fans are in, but I don't think we are in that fortunate position. The most credible alternative bid last time round was all about a move to the Peninsula. And it relied on a money man who suddenly found that events exploding in Kiev might be more pressing for him than buying an English second division football club.
The reverse is also true, though. No campaign, no Mercury petition, no Peter Cordwell and the club would have died at Selhurst. It may have died without Lennie Lawrence too. The directors did not come forward in a vacuum - the campaign demonstrated the feeling that existed and helped to demonstrate that the club could thrive. And they couldn't and wouldn't have demonstrated that support to the council through the VP because as you know the board didn't take it seriously, despite your various efforts to engage Mike Norris.
It's also my view that an organised supporter group could, with today's social media, and would have stopped the move by making it unworkable.
I agree as well it is nice what the Trust are doing and it is important to do something but I feel like no matter what we did, it wouldn't really make a difference, the trust reminds me of a Model UN or Model House of Commons from school that is nice, but it doesn't actually lead to anything. It's like a group of people coming together to try and tell Sainsbury's that you want them to change how they do business in their shop, but you are only ever going to shop there, so why would they care? Especially when they don't even want to listen to you in the first place.
The Trust unfortunately is weakest when it needs to be strongest, and strongest when it isn't needed, ie, when we have a dickhead of an owner who doesn't want to listen and co operate, we really need something like the trust, but their powers are then at their weakest, because without the ear of the owners, there is very little you can do (I doubt you can persuade me otherwise but please do try!), and when you have an owner who is really willing to listen, generally they will be the kind of owners who run the club for the good of the fans anyway, so there isn't as much a need for a trust.... Unfortunate but that's how I see it.
If Sainsbury's had the level of customer discontent among our supporters they would recognise they had a major problem and come up with a corporate response to address it, because they have no interest in aggravating their customers and would recognise that it must be damaging their business.
This is hard, but it is no harder than reversing John Fyer's position in 1985.
That's an interesting remark. To what extent did we, the fans, do that?
First of all we didn't stop him moving us to Selhurst (because we had no credible fans organisation talking to the club or monitoring its business - you and I first met in that appalling Supporters Club meeting, of course.) Secondly we set out on the road back to the Valley when messrs Alwen and Norris came along and took charge of the club. Now you may justifiably argue that the effective sustained protest at Selhurst, led by the creation of the Voice, inspired Alwen and Norris to step in. But without them, we the fans alone could not have got Charlton back to the Valley. Our biggest role (although perhaps not yours personally, that was the creation of the Voice itself earlier) was the Valley Party, but by then we had directors who were on the same side, and our opponent and our argument was clear.
The issue we must always remind ourselves of is, if not Duchatelet, then who? And why would that person or group be any better? Today we have had on CL somebody claiming to know of an offer. If he is a real Charlton fan, why doesn't he contact the Trust, or the Voice or @Henry Irving or @Grapevine49, whoever really, but show us that there is an alternative. The we could consider supporting that alternative. That was the position the Standard fans were in, it appears to be the position the Leeds fans are in, but I don't think we are in that fortunate position. The most credible alternative bid last time round was all about a move to the Peninsula. And it relied on a money man who suddenly found that events exploding in Kiev might be more pressing for him than buying an English second division football club.
The reverse is also true, though. No campaign, no Mercury petition, no Peter Cordwell and the club would have died at Selhurst. The directors did not come forward in a vacuum - the campaign demonstrated the feeling that existed and helped to demonstrate that the cob could thrive.
I did acknowledge that though in my previous comment (now highlighted). This highlights the need for what you've called elsewhere a "collegiate" approach. Some people are naturally talented at protesting effectively. We also need people who can help find answers to the question "If not RD, then who?". Those kind of people are more likely to be sitting in the West Stand than gathering outside it, and we need to reach out and talk to them. (Conversely those who claim on CL to already have the answer, need to stop dicking around with cryptic comments on here and reach out to the organised groups, be it the Trust, a local Addick group or indeed VOTV).
oh PA I don't know which is the best way to protest, being a long way from the Valley and only attending a number of away matches I am completely out of the loop and not partaking in social media, but you asked so here goes: 1. Nothing illegal as it will backfire 2. Although black and white Is laudable it did nothing for Man Utd with their yellow & green and that had far more exposure than we could ever envisage. 3. With Sky present it must be something visual so either late entry by fans or a mass turn away from the pitch at a given moment which could be enhanced by the black & white and posters, if Sky are informed beforehand so they know what we are doing.
Finally I would support whatever legal protest the majority of supporters want, if there is a way of ascertaining that and The Trust does organise something then we might even raid the piggy bank and come down for the Ipswich match so as to take part in the protest.
lancashie lad, the televised CAFC v Ipswich game will, I am sure, afford the watching audience plenty of proof of our collective anger at what has happened to our club. But this televised game is not the be all / end all of opposition to RD. There will be other opportunities. It's all very well seeking leaders to rally behind, but people can think for themselves and opposition in days / weeks / months to come may well be a mixture of the sporadic, the opportune, the instantaneous and the planned. It may be humorous, colourful, noisy, or none of these. Let's not worry too much about having to do X or Y. This period in our interesting history may not be as well defined as was Back to The Valley, but I'm confident that we will find a way to make ourselves heard - and get results.
Excellent thread with interesting arguments. I’m sure that the anger expressed on C.L. by most posters reflects the feeling of the majority of Charlton supporters. The club having a dialogue with the Trust is important, but that alone will do nothing to pacify those wishing to see the departure of the current regime. Would a protest calling for Roland and his Belgium entourage to leave attract the mass support from the fans to be effective? We need the emergence of a creditable buyer with the finance to grow our club that will galvanise the kind support needed for a protest calling for a change of ownership. When the previous regime were trying to sell the club, I seem to remember they said there was one group who they refused to negotiate with. Not sure why, maybe personal animosity existed between the group and the owners. Maybe they were not a creditable alternative. Maybe lack of finance. Just before R.D. completed the purchase, there was others interested in buying the club. Rick may (or may not) be able to confirm this. It’s difficult to imagine anyone emerging to buy with the club in its present state. We live in hope.
Lanc Lad, I'm a big supporter of the Trust and I think they have a major part to hopefully play over the coming months that I really hope everyone can support and unify behind.
But let's get this clear, they are by no means the be all and end all. It would turn far more noses up if they acted in that way and sought to control / own / lead on everything. I think they have wisely learned this the hard way as the body has evolved. There are certain things it is the right fit for them to lead on, there are other things that, well perhaps not.
At present it seems there is a pretty well publicised general call to protest half hour before the game on Saturday. It is an opening gambit, and it will be interesting to see what interest supporter wise this will attract. This has been a word of mouth / social media spreader and has had no group-leading organisation.
This is going to be an evolving story and the picture can change by the day. In my opinion, it is too early to be publicly focusing on the Ipswich game as with three games and a well publicised meeting ahead of that, the situation may well have changed. 7-9 days ahead of the Ipswich game is probably the right time to start putting any Ipswich game ideas 'out there'. I'm aware a number of people are investigating, provisionally planning various options already.
Let's see how things over the next week go is how I'd summarise, and then after that I think things will start getting a bit more structured. Just my opinion though
I am a member of CAST and congratulate them on the work they have done with regard to the Olympic Stadium. I did not attend the recent AGM as the distance involved made it impractical. However I have read the the piece on the web site entitled " Charlton in disarray - how should we respond?
What a load of fence sitting, it seems that the tone of the article is that the Trust has worked to get dialogue with someone at the club and does not want to jeopardise that work by leading/backing/supporting any direct action against the club. Surely the Trust and it's external advisors, whoever they are, must realise that RD will not talk to any of us and KM is his conduit and she does not acknowledge the history or legacy of longstanding supporters of our club.
From reading CL there is a genuine groundswell of antagonism towards the owners and the Trust should be involved in this rather than sitting on the sidelines ringing their hands and hoping for some dialogue at sometime with someone. So Mr Clarke and your external advisors please get off the fence and do what is necessary and that is to publicise our plight in any legal way possible. After all if the club continues on its downward spiral there will be no club when West Ham move into their new home.
I am a subscriber to the Trust and agree with every word of this post. Personally I am still not sure what the Trust is about.
Lanc Lad, I'm a big supporter of the Trust and I think they have a major part to hopefully play over the coming months that I really hope everyone can support and unify behind.
But let's get this clear, they are by no means the be all and end all. It would turn far more noses up if they acted in that way and sought to control / own / lead on everything. I think they have wisely learned this the hard way as the body has evolved. There are certain things it is the right fit for them to lead on, there are other things that, well perhaps not.
At present it seems there is a pretty well publicised general call to protest half hour before the game on Saturday. It is an opening gambit, and it will be interesting to see what interest supporter wise this will attract. This has been a word of mouth / social media spreader and has had no group-leading organisation.
This is going to be an evolving story and the picture can change by the day. In my opinion, it is too early to be publicly focusing on the Ipswich game as with three games and a well publicised meeting ahead of that, the situation may well have changed. 7-9 days ahead of the Ipswich game is probably the right time to start putting any Ipswich game ideas 'out there'. I'm aware a number of people are investigating, provisionally planning various options already.
Let's see how things over the next week go is how I'd summarise, and then after that I think things will start getting a bit more structured. Just my opinion though
Regarding Saturday,do you not think this site should be making people aware of the proposed protest? Seems a little mooted,which could possibly be construed as because its not Trust organised its not something this site want to get involved with. Just an observation.
Comments
If it's her personal choice, then she's worse than a puppet, she's a bloody idiot. If people are willing to give up their free time to help you, you don't just say no.
http://www.castrust.org/2015/11/charlton-in-disarray-how-should-we-respond/
“There was general dismay at the current plight of the club. Lack of a unifying vision; poor managerial appointments; instability and inexperience; alienating public statements, and unwillingness to appreciate the club’s history and its fans”
“Steve Clarke acknowledged that we had clearly been unsuccessful in establishing any sort of commitment to an ongoing participation with supporters on strategic matters”
“We are however now more optimistic as, in discussions with the club in recent weeks, we have been given indications of a thawing in their attitude to the idea of serious dialogue with the Trust. We have little doubt that this is largely because of the current plight of the club but we will nevertheless be pursuing all possible routes over the next few weeks to get this engagement off the ground. In addition the club are setting up a meeting with representatives of various supporters groups to be held in early November. It is the Trust board’s view that, particularly in the light of all the effort over the months to secure dialogue, it would be foolish to jeopardise the opportunity at this late stage”
And for me that last paragraph is the key part. The Trust has been trying to secure dialogue with the club since the Woolwich meeting – for lots of supporters the necessity for dialogue went away when the results turned round – but not for the Trust, that has been a key aim for a long time. Now, and I don’t think I’m being over cynical in saying this, because the results have gone off a cliff and a large part of the supporter base are kicking off the regime seems more amenable to dialogue and it would be ridiculous to not at least explore that option. If it proves to be in vain and nothing is achieved in the next few weeks (say, prior to the Ipswich game) then Steve Clarke, chairman of the Trust, has already begun canvassing ideas (“Steve Clarke asked the meeting for views on how the Trust should respond if, in a few weeks’ time, it found itself no further forward”) for the next step and I think we’d all agree that anything we do needs to be in unity and with a clear aim and purpose rather than some supporters deciding on a stadium boycott, some deciding on a protest, some deciding on a pitch invasion and none of them with clear objectives for their angst.
The cost of membership.
The degree of democratic structure.
The leadership which is seen as ego driven.
The representation numbers, as there are far more fans not in the Trust than in it.
The surveys.
The fact that they won't get anywhere so is there any point.
Working on 'fringe' stuff like the ACV and the Olympic stadium
The Stall.
The Trust news.
The Website.
Both the lack of leadership and being led by the nose.
The demographic make up of the committee.
That is all off the top of my head.
It reads to me that if some people do something they clearly are putting themselves up to be shot at, and critics who act like professional hecklers have easy targets to put down and despise.
My answer to those critics is to either join, say your piece, get involved. or maybe to do something themselves (which demo's, boycotts, and campaigns are achieving).
I cannot for the life of me see that the Trust is part of some great big conspiracy to somehow make things at Charlton worse.
It is also telling that some non members are kind of saying 'what is the blimmin Trust doing about it then?', but won't help or support in any way.
There is a term passive aggressive which fits the trust critics perfectly.
Passive equals doing jack chite.
Aggressive equals non stop undermining, often personal.
It is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that there ought to be feedback and criticism of the Trust which one would hope is constructive, and it is especially valid if it comes from members of the Trust, and my experience of the Trust leadership is that they are very willing to listen and absorb criticism.
What is pathetic is the destructive moaning from folk who can't be arsed to do anything more.
During this particular crisis it would be great if somehow we can put infighting on hold and try to see the bigger picture, which is the fundamental change being forced on our club, almost like forced gender re-alignment when we want to remain either male or female.
The meeting the other night surely gave a great opportunity to agree on something and then communicate what this was to be to the wider fan base, but it doesn't seem like anything has happened. A protest/form of action takes time to organise and I'm scared we will miss a real opportunity in front of the Sky cameras.
Anyway as I said I don't intend to criticize even if it sounds like that, and I am appreciative of the work put in by the trust, just feel they may have missed an opportunity.
If your objective is nothing other than disrupt the club to such a degree that RD packs his bags and sells up, I don't think you need the Trust, you just need a dedicated protest group of like minded people. Bit like an unofficial strike where the people who will have to eventually agree a settlement are not the ones supporting the action.
If you think there should be dialogue between fans and the club (whoever is the owner) where views can be exchanged frankly, the Trust does have a role to play. It is not sitting on the fence, it is simply acknowledging that it is not the body to organise protest just for the sake of protesting and undermine its far more valuable potential as a mechanism to force change by force of argument.
How would the Trust have credibility if it supported burning down the West Stand and the next day expected to be able to sit down and be taken seriously by the club as a line of communication between the club and fans.
The Trust is not set up to fight the battle with force, but by argument. No guarantee of success, and it is not sitting on the fence, it has a clear view of its role and initial objectives. Arguments must be put forward by the Trust and accepted or rejected before it can risk taking action which denies it a working relationship with the club.
The Trust can't have a constitution that changes to meet every different view of what it should be doing. You either accept the constitution and its limitations or you don't, but there is no point in criticising it just because it can't be bent at will to your way of thinking.
The Trust unfortunately is weakest when it needs to be strongest, and strongest when it isn't needed, ie, when we have a dickhead of an owner who doesn't want to listen and co operate, we really need something like the trust, but their powers are then at their weakest, because without the ear of the owners, there is very little you can do (I doubt you can persuade me otherwise but please do try!), and when you have an owner who is really willing to listen, generally they will be the kind of owners who run the club for the good of the fans anyway, so there isn't as much a need for a trust.... Unfortunate but that's how I see it.
The former probably don't see the point in the Trust.
The former probably don't include Prague who decided he wanted some information he was told he couldn't have it.
I know you weren't suggesting burning down the West Stand, and I know you realise than nor am I, but sometimes you have to make people take not of you. The Ipswich game might be too close by the time the meeting on the 10th has been discussed among fans. That may or may not have been the reason for the meeting with RM and KM but the fans need to make a statement at some point and if that action doesn't have the Trust leading it then it runs the risk of being seen as apologists for the club.
Do you think she ignores the trust because she wants to, or because that's what she is told to do?
She ignores the trust in the same way that Mussa and duchatelat ignore the trust. They are irrelevant to the great plan. By seeking attention with a mandate from people who are not willing to protest or demonstrate in other high profile ways that they mean business, the trust is easy to ignore. It is only by showing that you have a mandate from a lot of people who are willing to protest, walk away from the turnstiles and highlight the predicament of the club in the media that you get a seat at the negotiating table. The trust is a talking shop with lots of good intentioned people being led by people who do not want confrontation.
If the trust actually girded its loins and stood with the protesters and petitioners it might earn a mandate to speak, until then it is an irrelevancy and will be ignored in favour of the soft options of the fans forums which make the current ownership appear as if they are consulting with fans.
As for the comments that it is weeks not months before the Trust decides to act, the issue is now, address it now! The trust has not been invited to participate! He who hesitates is lost.
She ignores the trust in the same way that Mussa and duchatelat ignore the trust. They are irrelevant to the great plan. By seeking attention with a mandate from people who are not willing to protest or demonstrate in other high profile ways that they mean business, the trust is easy to ignore. It is only by showing that you have a mandate from a lot of people who are willing to protest, walk away from the turnstiles and highlight the predicament of the club in the media that you get a seat at the negotiating table. The trust is a talking shop with lots of good intentioned people being led by people who do not want confrontation.
If the trust actually girded its loins and stood with the protesters and petitioners it might earn a mandate to speak, until then it is an irrelevancy and will be ignored in favour of the soft options of the fans forums which make the current ownership appear as if they are consulting with fans.
As for the comments that it is weeks not months before the Trust decides to act, the issue is now, address it now! The trust has not been invited to participate! He who hesitates is lost.
But they have.
This is hard, but it is no harder than reversing John Fyer's position in 1985.
First of all we didn't stop him moving us to Selhurst (because we had no credible fans organisation talking to the club or monitoring its business - you and I first met in that appalling Supporters Club meeting, of course.) Secondly we set out on the road back to the Valley when messrs Alwen and Norris came along and took charge of the club. Now you may justifiably argue that the effective sustained protest at Selhurst, led by the creation of the Voice, inspired Alwen and Norris to step in. But without them, we the fans alone could not have got Charlton back to the Valley. Our biggest role (although perhaps not yours personally, that was the creation of the Voice itself earlier) was the Valley Party, but by then we had directors who were on the same side, and our opponent and our argument was clear.
The issue we must always remind ourselves of is, if not Duchatelet, then who? And why would that person or group be any better? Today we have had on CL somebody claiming to know of an offer. If he is a real Charlton fan, why doesn't he contact the Trust, or the Voice or @Henry Irving or @Grapevine49, whoever really, but show us that there is an alternative. The we could consider supporting that alternative. That was the position the Standard fans were in, it appears to be the position the Leeds fans are in, but I don't think we are in that fortunate position. The most credible alternative bid last time round was all about a move to the Peninsula. And it relied on a money man who suddenly found that events exploding in Kiev might be more pressing for him than buying an English second division football club.
However one thing remains clear to me and that is that through the Trust's inactivity it will miss the chance to organise any activity against the club for the Ipswich match. As it seems the Trust actually understands that the televised match is the best time to show our dissatisfaction don't they also realise that the final time that they can actually communicate en masse with fans is at the Sheffield Match. Not everyone is hooked into social media but if the Trust had a coherent plan and leafleted supporters before the next home match it would spread the word for the Sky match.
Sorry PA but it still seems as fence sitting to me and by the time you climb off it in a number of weeks the chance will have gone
I'll confine myself to observing that at the meeting last Thursday there were about as many different views about what should be done (in protest terms) as there were speakers.
I'm not trying to score points here, but I'd be interested to know based on the various ideas floating around here for the Ipswich game, which particular one you would support (and therefore would be happy for the Trust, of which you are a member, to support).
Genuine question. And if you ask me the same question, my own preference is to support Spell it Out, because it is visual, and asks for exactly what the Trust has been trying to achieve since the Woolwich meeting. I even had my black and white scarf at the AGM, and offered it to Joe, but he turned it down because its a Swansea scarf and he won't wear another club's scarf.
So, what about you?
It's also my view that an organised supporter group could, with today's social media, and would have stopped the move by making it unworkable.
1. Nothing illegal as it will backfire
2. Although black and white Is laudable it did nothing for Man Utd with their yellow & green and that had far more exposure than we could ever envisage.
3. With Sky present it must be something visual so either late entry by fans or a mass turn away from the pitch at a given moment which could be enhanced by the black & white and posters, if Sky are informed beforehand so they know what we are doing.
Finally I would support whatever legal protest the majority of supporters want, if there is a way of ascertaining that and The Trust does organise something then we might even raid the piggy bank and come down for the Ipswich match so as to take part in the protest.
But this televised game is not the be all / end all of opposition to RD. There will be other opportunities. It's all very well seeking leaders to rally behind, but people can think for themselves and opposition in days / weeks / months to come may well be a mixture of the sporadic, the opportune, the instantaneous and the planned. It may be humorous, colourful, noisy, or none of these. Let's not worry too much about having to do X or Y. This period in our interesting history may not be as well defined as was Back to The Valley, but I'm confident that we will find a way to make ourselves heard - and get results.
I’m sure that the anger expressed on C.L. by most posters reflects the feeling of the majority of Charlton supporters.
The club having a dialogue with the Trust is important, but that alone will do nothing to pacify those wishing to see the departure of the current regime.
Would a protest calling for Roland and his Belgium entourage to leave attract the mass support from the fans to be effective?
We need the emergence of a creditable buyer with the finance to grow our club that will galvanise the kind support needed for a protest calling for a change of ownership.
When the previous regime were trying to sell the club, I seem to remember they said there was one group who they refused to negotiate with. Not sure why, maybe personal animosity existed between the group and the owners. Maybe they were not a creditable alternative. Maybe lack of finance.
Just before R.D. completed the purchase, there was others interested in buying the club.
Rick may (or may not) be able to confirm this.
It’s difficult to imagine anyone emerging to buy with the club in its present state. We live in hope.
But let's get this clear, they are by no means the be all and end all. It would turn far more noses up if they acted in that way and sought to control / own / lead on everything. I think they have wisely learned this the hard way as the body has evolved. There are certain things it is the right fit for them to lead on, there are other things that, well perhaps not.
At present it seems there is a pretty well publicised general call to protest half hour before the game on Saturday. It is an opening gambit, and it will be interesting to see what interest supporter wise this will attract. This has been a word of mouth / social media spreader and has had no group-leading organisation.
This is going to be an evolving story and the picture can change by the day. In my opinion, it is too early to be publicly focusing on the Ipswich game as with three games and a well publicised meeting ahead of that, the situation may well have changed. 7-9 days ahead of the Ipswich game is probably the right time to start putting any Ipswich game ideas 'out there'. I'm aware a number of people are investigating, provisionally planning various options already.
Let's see how things over the next week go is how I'd summarise, and then after that I think things will start getting a bit more structured. Just my opinion though
I'm not a social media user and can't hear words of mouth up here, so I'll take your word for it and keep a watching brief for a week.
Seems a little mooted,which could possibly be construed as because its not Trust organised its not something this site want to get involved with. Just an observation.