I think that if the MC is going to prevent any individual asking a supplementary question or seeking clarification on an answer provided to them (as occurred at the last meeting, I understand), I'm sure others present will try and pick these up as the meeting progresses; otherwise, we are likely to find KM trying to fob supporters off with trite, pre-prepared answers. That may happen anyway, of course, but KM and RM need to be pushed on the key issues and if those lines of questioning are unreasonably closed out, we can then draw our own inferences as to why.
Let's hope it's a constructive discussion and good luck to the supporter representatives and other 'random' attendees.
Yup, I see this as a problem too. Debate is needed to get the issues solved and this will require a follow-up meeting with a few individuals.
I have a few questions of my own that I think all of us not going would like to know the answers to. Please could one of the representatives, or golden ticket winners, answer them for us?
1. Have any of the people attending been given an agenda or meeting structure by the club? 2. I assume the meeting is not being broadcast on Player or YouTube - can this be confirmed? 3. Can those attending confirm that they have not been asked to, nor will they agree to, any embargo on the discussions that take place and the answers given? (waiting for official minutes will not be acceptable to any of us, I'm sure) 4. How are those attending intending on communicating their notes and the results of the meeting with those of us not present? 5. Is anyone going planning to live tweet the event and what are their twitter handles? 6. Is a representative of the local press going to be present to report on the event? 7. Have the number of randomly selected non-affiliated "guests" been announced - is this a meeting with 15 fans or 25/30/50/etc? 8. Has the chair of the meeting been announced and are they independent if so?
I would hope that if there are any restrictions regarding points 3/4/5/6 above then those attending won't abide by them?
Thanks in advance for any replies.
Hi @LeaburnForEngland. I hope it's reassuring that all of those questions have been considered at some point by the group. We've been working behind the scenes to get ready for this meeting, so it's not going to be just a series of random questions or observations about the state of the burgers. For once, we have a large group of fan organisations working together - and doing so very well if I might observe that.
In answer to your specific questions.
1. No, but we are taking our own agenda to the meeting. 2. We have asked the club to video the event, or stream it if possible, but await a response. We'll try to organise our own if necessary. 3. We have insisted there shall be no such embargo. 4. We'll discuss and agree this tomorrow - we need to nominate a scribe. 5. This hasn't been arranged yet, I'll see what's possible tomorrow. 6. No. This is a meeting between the fans and the club, but as we won't accept an embargo the press can ask us anything they like after the meeting. 7. I understand 20 will be going, including the original list and 4 additional Fans' Forum members. We've identified 2 of the additional invitees, who are on board with us, but the club won't reveal the others. 8. We are negotiating with the club over this. We are insisting on an independent chair and have a couple of names in the frame, to be confirmed.
We will go to the meeting, and hopefully we'll still be there at the end.
I have a few questions of my own that I think all of us not going would like to know the answers to. Please could one of the representatives, or golden ticket winners, answer them for us?
1. Have any of the people attending been given an agenda or meeting structure by the club? 2. I assume the meeting is not being broadcast on Player or YouTube - can this be confirmed? 3. Can those attending confirm that they have not been asked to, nor will they agree to, any embargo on the discussions that take place and the answers given? (waiting for official minutes will not be acceptable to any of us, I'm sure) 4. How are those attending intending on communicating their notes and the results of the meeting with those of us not present? 5. Is anyone going planning to live tweet the event and what are their twitter handles? 6. Is a representative of the local press going to be present to report on the event? 7. Have the number of randomly selected non-affiliated "guests" been announced - is this a meeting with 15 fans or 25/30/50/etc? 8. Has the chair of the meeting been announced and are they independent if so?
I would hope that if there are any restrictions regarding points 3/4/5/6 above then those attending won't abide by them?
Thanks in advance for any replies.
Hi @LeaburnForEngland. I hope it's reassuring that all of those questions have been considered at some point by the group. We've been working behind the scenes to get ready for this meeting, so it's not going to be just a series of random questions or observations about the state of the burgers. For once, we have a large group of fan organisations working together - and doing so very well if I might observe that.
In answer to your specific questions.
1. No, but we are taking our own agenda to the meeting. 2. We have asked the club to video the event, or stream it if possible, but await a response. We'll try to organise our own if necessary. 3. We have insisted there shall be no such embargo. 4. We'll discuss and agree this tomorrow - we need to nominate a scribe. 5. This hasn't been arranged yet, I'll see what's possible tomorrow. 6. No. This is a meeting between the fans and the club, but as we won't accept an embargo the press can ask us anything they like after the meeting. 7. I understand 20 will be going, including the original list and 4 additional Fans' Forum members. We've identified 2 of the additional invitees, who are on board with us, but the club won't reveal the others. 8. We are negotiating with the club over this. We are insisting on an independent chair and have a couple of names in the frame, to be confirmed.
We will go to the meeting, and hopefully we'll still be there at the end.
I did assume that all my questions and more would have been considered by those going, but hadn't seen anything written up regarding them on here so thought I'd ask. Appreciate the response!
good players in suufficient quantity and a good manager - its all that matters to 99% of the supporters - the fear of going back to league 1 is what this whole thing is about - communication and all that is completely secondary - apart from a few who were itk and now aren't - lets get it right
I have a few questions of my own that I think all of us not going would like to know the answers to. Please could one of the representatives, or golden ticket winners, answer them for us?
1. Have any of the people attending been given an agenda or meeting structure by the club? 2. I assume the meeting is not being broadcast on Player or YouTube - can this be confirmed? 3. Can those attending confirm that they have not been asked to, nor will they agree to, any embargo on the discussions that take place and the answers given? (waiting for official minutes will not be acceptable to any of us, I'm sure) 4. How are those attending intending on communicating their notes and the results of the meeting with those of us not present? 5. Is anyone going planning to live tweet the event and what are their twitter handles? 6. Is a representative of the local press going to be present to report on the event? 7. Have the number of randomly selected non-affiliated "guests" been announced - is this a meeting with 15 fans or 25/30/50/etc? 8. Has the chair of the meeting been announced and are they independent if so?
I would hope that if there are any restrictions regarding points 3/4/5/6 above then those attending won't abide by them?
Thanks in advance for any replies.
Hi @LeaburnForEngland. I hope it's reassuring that all of those questions have been considered at some point by the group. We've been working behind the scenes to get ready for this meeting, so it's not going to be just a series of random questions or observations about the state of the burgers. For once, we have a large group of fan organisations working together - and doing so very well if I might observe that.
In answer to your specific questions.
1. No, but we are taking our own agenda to the meeting. 2. We have asked the club to video the event, or stream it if possible, but await a response. We'll try to organise our own if necessary. 3. We have insisted there shall be no such embargo. 4. We'll discuss and agree this tomorrow - we need to nominate a scribe. 5. This hasn't been arranged yet, I'll see what's possible tomorrow. 6. No. This is a meeting between the fans and the club, but as we won't accept an embargo the press can ask us anything they like after the meeting. 7. I understand 20 will be going, including the original list and 4 additional Fans' Forum members. We've identified 2 of the additional invitees, who are on board with us, but the club won't reveal the others. 8. We are negotiating with the club over this. We are insisting on an independent chair and have a couple of names in the frame, to be confirmed.
We will go to the meeting, and hopefully we'll still be there at the end.
I did assume that all my questions and more would have been considered by those going, but hadn't seen anything written up regarding them on here so thought I'd ask. Appreciate the response!
Pleasure. You'll appreciate that we'll keep the detail a little closer to our chest for now, but hopefully all will become clearer at and after the meeting.
So B were you invited as a 'random' as because you were on some Fans Rep list? The group seem to have covered everything I was concerned about regarding embargoes etc.
good players in suufficient quantity and a good manager - its all that matters to 99% of the supporters - the fear of going back to league 1 is what this whole thing is about - communication and all that is completely secondary - apart from a few who were itk and now aren't - lets get it right
Results are important, they are the outcome of a well-run club after all, but I think we're now finding that only the raw emotion of the underlying discontent - which I personally think is rooted in disenfranchisement - was covered over by a good run.
I do think the protest would have been more effective had they gone back behind the West Stand after the game as well - given the win, it would have demonstrated the issue was more than just about the result.
I think this questionnaire is barking down the wrong tree completely. I answered 6 and 7 but I'm not interested in any of those things now. My only and sole interest with regards to RD and KM is that they resign and sell the club. As a trust member, I would be disappointed and angered if those trust reps attending the meeting do so and start entertaining those sort of conversations about how to improve things and the relationship with current owners etc. I'm not interested in going forward in any way shape or form with the current owners even if he says he's going to spend 100m on the squad - I don't believe it and I want them out. The meeting should be very short -explain that supporters interests are only in them selling and the only discussions we are are willing to have is how that process can be expedited and anything we can do to assist it. If they don't agree we Simply say okay if that's your stance then expect further action from our side, and we leave the meeting immediately.
I think this questionnaire is barking down the wrong tree completely. I answered 6 and 7 but I'm not interested in any of those things now. My only and sole interest with regards to RD and KM is that they resign and sell the club. As a trust member, I would be disappointed and angered if those trust reps attending the meeting do so and start entertaining those sort of conversations about how to improve things and the relationship with current owners etc. I'm not interested in going forward in any way shape or form with the current owners even if he says he's going to spend 100m on the squad - I don't believe it and I want them out. The meeting should be very short -explain that supporters interests are only in them selling and the only discussions we are are willing to have is how that process can be expedited and anything we can do to assist it. If they don't agree we Simply say okay if that's your stance then expect further action from our side, and we leave the meeting immediately.
Sadly I still think CAST are just after regular meetings so they can input their views. If they give them that they will be happy. We will see.
good players in suufficient quantity and a good manager - its all that matters to 99% of the supporters - the fear of going back to league 1 is what this whole thing is about - communication and all that is completely secondary - apart from a few who were itk and now aren't - lets get it right
Results are important, they are the outcome of a well-run club after all, but I think we're now finding that only the raw emotion of the underlying discontent - which I personally think is rooted in disenfranchisement - was covered over by a good run.
I do think the protest would have been more effective had they gone back behind the West Stand after the game as well - given the win, it would have demonstrated the issue was more than just about the result.
Indeed. If it was all about results we'd all be supporting the PL top six, because they are most likely to win.
So lazy and shortsighted to see the way the club is run as the self-serving priority of a few and completely contradicted by the evidence, for example, of February's public meeting.
good players in suufficient quantity and a good manager - its all that matters to 99% of the supporters - the fear of going back to league 1 is what this whole thing is about - communication and all that is completely secondary - apart from a few who were itk and now aren't - lets get it right
Results are important, they are the outcome of a well-run club after all, but I think we're now finding that only the raw emotion of the underlying discontent - which I personally think is rooted in disenfranchisement - was covered over by a good run.
I do think the protest would have been more effective had they gone back behind the West Stand after the game as well - given the win, it would have demonstrated the issue was more than just about the result.
actions speak louder than words - results are all that really matters in football
I think this questionnaire is barking down the wrong tree completely. I answered 6 and 7 but I'm not interested in any of those things now. My only and sole interest with regards to RD and KM is that they resign and sell the club. As a trust member, I would be disappointed and angered if those trust reps attending the meeting do so and start entertaining those sort of conversations about how to improve things and the relationship with current owners etc. I'm not interested in going forward in any way shape or form with the current owners even if he says he's going to spend 100m on the squad - I don't believe it and I want them out. The meeting should be very short -explain that supporters interests are only in them selling and the only discussions we are are willing to have is how that process can be expedited and anything we can do to assist it. If they don't agree we Simply say okay if that's your stance then expect further action from our side, and we leave the meeting immediately.
You know that's what a survey is for, right? Exploring different views?
I think this questionnaire is barking down the wrong tree completely. I answered 6 and 7 but I'm not interested in any of those things now. My only and sole interest with regards to RD and KM is that they resign and sell the club. As a trust member, I would be disappointed and angered if those trust reps attending the meeting do so and start entertaining those sort of conversations about how to improve things and the relationship with current owners etc. I'm not interested in going forward in any way shape or form with the current owners even if he says he's going to spend 100m on the squad - I don't believe it and I want them out. The meeting should be very short -explain that supporters interests are only in them selling and the only discussions we are are willing to have is how that process can be expedited and anything we can do to assist it. If they don't agree we Simply say okay if that's your stance then expect further action from our side, and we leave the meeting immediately.
I think this questionnaire is barking down the wrong tree completely. I answered 6 and 7 but I'm not interested in any of those things now. My only and sole interest with regards to RD and KM is that they resign and sell the club. As a trust member, I would be disappointed and angered if those trust reps attending the meeting do so and start entertaining those sort of conversations about how to improve things and the relationship with current owners etc. I'm not interested in going forward in any way shape or form with the current owners even if he says he's going to spend 100m on the squad - I don't believe it and I want them out. The meeting should be very short -explain that supporters interests are only in them selling and the only discussions we are are willing to have is how that process can be expedited and anything we can do to assist it. If they don't agree we Simply say okay if that's your stance then expect further action from our side, and we leave the meeting immediately.
I used the comment section to express similar opinions. If others do likewise then that angle is covered.
Results ARE the main thing in football though. Nobody is expecting us to win the Division by 10 points, but it's the losing streak (and Luzon/Fraeye situation) that has precipitated the anger. The September 2015 edition of VOTV for example was cautiously optimistic, and if we'd won the 'easy' games of our poor run against Preston, Brentford and MKD to sit midtable under Luzon, there wouldn't have been any demonstration on Saturday.
Talking to a few fans at half time on Saturday in the East Stand, I didn't feel strong passions about the owners, and after the game outside the ground, everyone was happy, so I wouldn't assume that EVERY fan is as passionately against RD and KM as many on this board or other forms of social media.
I'd be staggered if some sort of announcement about the managerial situation wasn't made before the meeting, maybe even tomorrow, so I'd be flexible with my questions as the situation might change from what we know now.
I think this questionnaire is barking down the wrong tree completely. I answered 6 and 7 but I'm not interested in any of those things now. My only and sole interest with regards to RD and KM is that they resign and sell the club. As a trust member, I would be disappointed and angered if those trust reps attending the meeting do so and start entertaining those sort of conversations about how to improve things and the relationship with current owners etc. I'm not interested in going forward in any way shape or form with the current owners even if he says he's going to spend 100m on the squad - I don't believe it and I want them out. The meeting should be very short -explain that supporters interests are only in them selling and the only discussions we are are willing to have is how that process can be expedited and anything we can do to assist it. If they don't agree we Simply say okay if that's your stance then expect further action from our side, and we leave the meeting immediately.
You know that's what a survey is for, right? Exploring different views?
Well its gone about it in a strange way then. Up to Q 6 Why only provide a list which MUST be selected from? And why must we select our agreement with three of someone elses ideas before we can progress? Without even the option to modify them.
That's not asking for different views. It certainly isnt exploring different views. Its telling people what they must think are priorities among a few ideas someone else has thrown together. I admire the aim but sadly there's no openness to other ideas until Q7.
So B were you invited as a 'random' as because you were on some Fans Rep list? The group seem to have covered everything I was concerned about regarding embargoes etc.
I really don't know why I was invited. But I have been. So ... I think I have a fair amount of questions but send me more.
I think this questionnaire is barking down the wrong tree completely. I answered 6 and 7 but I'm not interested in any of those things now. My only and sole interest with regards to RD and KM is that they resign and sell the club. As a trust member, I would be disappointed and angered if those trust reps attending the meeting do so and start entertaining those sort of conversations about how to improve things and the relationship with current owners etc. I'm not interested in going forward in any way shape or form with the current owners even if he says he's going to spend 100m on the squad - I don't believe it and I want them out. The meeting should be very short -explain that supporters interests are only in them selling and the only discussions we are are willing to have is how that process can be expedited and anything we can do to assist it. If they don't agree we Simply say okay if that's your stance then expect further action from our side, and we leave the meeting immediately.
Sadly I still think CAST are just after regular meetings so they can input their views. If they give them that they will be happy. We will see.
The trust has very little representation in the meeting and other, more immediately militant, views will be present to my knowledge.
That said, I don't disagree with the trust's approach to this meeting, even though I am doubtful the Belgians will deliver the change that's needed.
I think this questionnaire is barking down the wrong tree completely. I answered 6 and 7 but I'm not interested in any of those things now. My only and sole interest with regards to RD and KM is that they resign and sell the club. As a trust member, I would be disappointed and angered if those trust reps attending the meeting do so and start entertaining those sort of conversations about how to improve things and the relationship with current owners etc. I'm not interested in going forward in any way shape or form with the current owners even if he says he's going to spend 100m on the squad - I don't believe it and I want them out. The meeting should be very short -explain that supporters interests are only in them selling and the only discussions we are are willing to have is how that process can be expedited and anything we can do to assist it. If they don't agree we Simply say okay if that's your stance then expect further action from our side, and we leave the meeting immediately.
You know that's what a survey is for, right? Exploring different views?
Well its gone about it in a strange way then. Up to Q 6 Why only provide a list which MUST be selected from? And why must we select our agreement with three of someone elses ideas before we can progress? Without even the option to modify them.
That's not asking for different views. It certainly isnt exploring different views. Its telling people what they must think are priorities among a few ideas someone else has thrown together. I admire the aim but sadly there's no openness to other ideas until Q7.
Comments field?
Actually it's not a "few ideas someone else has thrown together" - these are the common things being received in the feedback requested.
I think this questionnaire is barking down the wrong tree completely. I answered 6 and 7 but I'm not interested in any of those things now. My only and sole interest with regards to RD and KM is that they resign and sell the club. As a trust member, I would be disappointed and angered if those trust reps attending the meeting do so and start entertaining those sort of conversations about how to improve things and the relationship with current owners etc. I'm not interested in going forward in any way shape or form with the current owners even if he says he's going to spend 100m on the squad - I don't believe it and I want them out. The meeting should be very short -explain that supporters interests are only in them selling and the only discussions we are are willing to have is how that process can be expedited and anything we can do to assist it. If they don't agree we Simply say okay if that's your stance then expect further action from our side, and we leave the meeting immediately.
You know that's what a survey is for, right? Exploring different views?
Well its gone about it in a strange way then. Up to Q 6 Why only provide a list which MUST be selected from? And why must we select our agreement with three of someone elses ideas before we can progress? Without even the option to modify them.
That's not asking for different views. It certainly isnt exploring different views. Its telling people what they must think are priorities among a few ideas someone else has thrown together. I admire the aim but sadly there's no openness to other ideas until Q7.
Comments field?
Actually it's not a "few ideas someone else has thrown together" - these are the common things being received in the feedback requested.
I presume you can only get to that after selecting the three statements you are forced to rank?
Results may improve but the whole feel for the club is shit from my point of view , it's hard to put in to words how odd this Duchatelet game is but it doesn't feel right with me win, lose or draw Saying that I heard fans saying "why do they want Roland out" as I left the ground on Saturday but they were late teens early twenties so , fair enough ,they have a different take on it all It all seems a bit too try hard with the gimmicks and very amateurish in the whole approach to these well intentioned but basically shit ideas Results are clearly mega important but I don't think our crowds are gonna improve dramatically whatever the results due to the general apathy amongst our support which this experiment has brought on
Results may improve but the whole feel for the club is shit from my point of view , it's hard to put in to words how odd this Duchatelet game is but it doesn't feel right with me win, lose or draw Saying that I heard fans saying "why do they want Roland out" as I left the ground on Saturday but they were late teens early twenties so , fair enough ,they have a different take on it all It all seems a bit too try hard with the gimmicks and very amateurish in the whole approach to these well intentioned but basically shit ideas Results are clearly mega important but I don't think our crowds are gonna improve dramatically whatever the results due to the general apathy amongst our support which this experiment has brought on
It just doesnt feel like Charlton..
If we were buying Fabregas and had mega money and the success that can come with huge spending, then we could probably get into the new normal... but this just feels like a bunch of players we don't really have an association with, always foreign, and normally rubbish...
Looks like I am invited to attend the meeting. My wife told me on Saturday that 'Paul' from Charlton called on Thursday asking if I was interested in attending the meeting. As I was out for the evening, she gave him my mobile and, sure enough, there is a missed call from the club. No message was left. I will call them today to see if my place has gone (which is probably the case) but fingers crossed. For what it is worth, I am not a member of any groups or forums - only a long standing season ticket holder and Valley Gold member. I just thought I'd share that with you as I see someone was querying the basis of who was invited by the club.
I think this questionnaire is barking down the wrong tree completely. I answered 6 and 7 but I'm not interested in any of those things now. My only and sole interest with regards to RD and KM is that they resign and sell the club. As a trust member, I would be disappointed and angered if those trust reps attending the meeting do so and start entertaining those sort of conversations about how to improve things and the relationship with current owners etc. I'm not interested in going forward in any way shape or form with the current owners even if he says he's going to spend 100m on the squad - I don't believe it and I want them out. The meeting should be very short -explain that supporters interests are only in them selling and the only discussions we are are willing to have is how that process can be expedited and anything we can do to assist it. If they don't agree we Simply say okay if that's your stance then expect further action from our side, and we leave the meeting immediately.
You know that's what a survey is for, right? Exploring different views?
Well its gone about it in a strange way then. Up to Q 6 Why only provide a list which MUST be selected from? And why must we select our agreement with three of someone elses ideas before we can progress? Without even the option to modify them.
That's not asking for different views. It certainly isnt exploring different views. Its telling people what they must think are priorities among a few ideas someone else has thrown together. I admire the aim but sadly there's no openness to other ideas until Q7.
Comments field?
Actually it's not a "few ideas someone else has thrown together" - these are the common things being received in the feedback requested.
I presume you can only get to that after selecting the three statements you are forced to rank?
Fair enough, but it's only intended as a flash survey.
Comments
In answer to your specific questions.
1. No, but we are taking our own agenda to the meeting.
2. We have asked the club to video the event, or stream it if possible, but await a response. We'll try to organise our own if necessary.
3. We have insisted there shall be no such embargo.
4. We'll discuss and agree this tomorrow - we need to nominate a scribe.
5. This hasn't been arranged yet, I'll see what's possible tomorrow.
6. No. This is a meeting between the fans and the club, but as we won't accept an embargo the press can ask us anything they like after the meeting.
7. I understand 20 will be going, including the original list and 4 additional Fans' Forum members. We've identified 2 of the additional invitees, who are on board with us, but the club won't reveal the others.
8. We are negotiating with the club over this. We are insisting on an independent chair and have a couple of names in the frame, to be confirmed.
We will go to the meeting, and hopefully we'll still be there at the end.
I did assume that all my questions and more would have been considered by those going, but hadn't seen anything written up regarding them on here so thought I'd ask. Appreciate the response!
But I'm listening to the group's chat that are going. I think all our concerns are covered. But please let me know if something not covered above.
I do think the protest would have been more effective had they gone back behind the West Stand after the game as well - given the win, it would have demonstrated the issue was more than just about the result.
So lazy and shortsighted to see the way the club is run as the self-serving priority of a few and completely contradicted by the evidence, for example, of February's public meeting.
Talking to a few fans at half time on Saturday in the East Stand, I didn't feel strong passions about the owners, and after the game outside the ground, everyone was happy, so I wouldn't assume that EVERY fan is as passionately against RD and KM as many on this board or other forms of social media.
I'd be staggered if some sort of announcement about the managerial situation wasn't made before the meeting, maybe even tomorrow, so I'd be flexible with my questions as the situation might change from what we know now.
Up to Q 6
Why only provide a list which MUST be selected from?
And why must we select our agreement with three of someone elses ideas before we can progress? Without even the option to modify them.
That's not asking for different views.
It certainly isnt exploring different views.
Its telling people what they must think are priorities among a few ideas someone else has thrown together. I admire the aim but sadly there's no openness to other ideas until Q7.
That said, I don't disagree with the trust's approach to this meeting, even though I am doubtful the Belgians will deliver the change that's needed.
Actually it's not a "few ideas someone else has thrown together" - these are the common things being received in the feedback requested.
Saying that I heard fans saying "why do they want Roland out" as I left the ground on Saturday but they were late teens early twenties so , fair enough ,they have a different take on it all
It all seems a bit too try hard with the gimmicks and very amateurish in the whole approach to these well intentioned but basically shit ideas
Results are clearly mega important but I don't think our crowds are gonna improve dramatically whatever the results due to the general apathy amongst our support which this experiment has brought on
If we were buying Fabregas and had mega money and the success that can come with huge spending, then we could probably get into the new normal... but this just feels like a bunch of players we don't really have an association with, always foreign, and normally rubbish...
So, er, overall not good...