How many active members are they in currently in VG? A couple of thousand? So we need 200 members to call for a meeting. Best we start getting our numbers together. 10%, that's five times KM's 2%.
There's never been a general meeting to my knowledge and it would be a huge inconvenience to the club to have one. It also has the advantage that it doesn't place all the weight on the two fan reps or the chair to change policy and confront the club's reps. I don't see how the chair could refuse to support a motion from them to hold such a meeting in current circumstances just because the club didn't want it. The club would then have a problem whether it attended or not because the meeting would have a locus to discuss the club's behaviour before making any policy changes and it not attending would effectively make the case for change, because it would be snubbing the scheme's funders.
The 10 per cent provision is poorly drafted. It could be read to imply that it is the 10 per cent wanting the meeting who have the responsibility to notify members of the meeting, yet they would not have or be allowed access to the data to do so - or even, though more easily overcome, to identify the 10 per cent in the first place!
I believe the Chair would act in good faith in that regard.
How many active members are they in currently in VG? A couple of thousand? So we need 200 members to call for a meeting. Best we start getting our numbers together. 10%, that's five times KM's 2%.
How many active members are they in currently in VG? A couple of thousand? So we need 200 members to call for a meeting. Best we start getting our numbers together. 10%, that's five times KM's 2%.
How many active members are they in currently in VG? A couple of thousand? So we need 200 members to call for a meeting. Best we start getting our numbers together. 10%, that's five times KM's 2%.
Happy to join this
Me too.
Plus one more. Fully support calling of a meeting and despite being geographically remote would make every attempt to attend in person
Well we have at least 20 confirmed VG members that have shown an interest on this thread of looking into the option of voting to withhold funds until RD has gone. I am happy to start a list to get this going.
We can't be anything like 2,000 members surely? Can we have a definitive number so that we can quantify the 10% required?
Do we have any more VG members not yet declared their willingness to support a general meeting?
I accidentally started a near identical thread so I've got rid of it and putting my post on here...
So KM stated in her interview that people will want to come Charlton to watch future prem players to play in the first team and then sold once attracted interest.
So why are Valley Gold members standing by and funding for players to come in to play a few games and be sold on?
Yes we've had it a few times when we've needed the sale but KM has made it fully aware that it's their business plan to do it all the time for nearly all youth players.
Valley Gold members should offer a revolt of pulling out their funding as a big group to hit their profit margins and make their plan stall.
If even 200 people pull out at once that would be £24000 at least! Not the biggest of losses but more losses to go alongside ticket slumps, revenue from inside the ground etc.
Surely hitting them in the most capable ways will be most effective in the long run..
I agree, that is why I am reluctant to leave it, but I don't want KM anywhere near it. She has shown total contempt to me and fellow fans and you would think being on the committee of such a scheme, she would understand that we are not just ordinary customers. These cheap lines are hurtful and disrespectful and you will be feeling this anger too I'm sure. Of course, I am but one member, but if enough others feel the same, maybe the club could head this off at the pass by replacing her with somebody like Chris Parkes, who I'm sure commands the trust of most of us. I would rather the influence is limited from the club's reps at the moment - what is the benefit of KM's influence? Can you give us a recent example?
There are lots of ways it helps to have the CEO on the committee. One example is that she oversees the comms team and ensures we get their time, which isn't always forthcoming. David Jones adds huge benefit too. Without them being in the committee, the club could offer no decisions without consulting further and we'd article to get things done.
You don't have to think she's the best CEO in the world to benefit from having an exec in the room.
Can I suggest people hold fire on cancelling while we establish whether we can call a meeting?
@rikofold would you be willing to propose a meeting immediately?
Of members? You'd need 200 there, that's unlikely - and to what end? Both Paul and I strongly disagree that withholding funds from the Academy is in members' interests, and I've explained countless times why. It will only harm the academy and it's the wrong target. It will damage our club in the long term not least because it's hard work building the membership.
Surely the target should be the owner and this won't touch him.
Let me add this. If Paul and I were to become persuaded that the club intended to misuse the funds such that it would compromise the aims of Valley Gold, then we would be remiss not to act. I don't think KM's performance in Dublin is enough, and youth player sales are nothing new.
Let me add this. If Paul and I were to become persuaded that the club intended to misuse the funds such that it would compromise the aims of Valley Gold, then we would be remiss not to act. I don't think KM's performance in Dublin is enough, and youth player sales are nothing new.
So if valley gold did not contribute towards the development of young players for Miere to sell the owner would not lose out?
Can I suggest people hold fire on cancelling while we establish whether we can call a meeting?
@rikofold would you be willing to propose a meeting immediately?
Of members? You'd need 200 there, that's unlikely - and to what end? Both Paul and I strongly disagree that withholding funds from the Academy is in members' interests, and I've explained countless times why. It will only harm the academy and it's the wrong target. It will damage our club in the long term not least because it's hard work building the membership.
Surely the target should be the owner and this won't touch him.
"My role on the Supporters’ Trust board helps me to be particularly sensitive to those things our supporters value, and I’m privileged to have the opportunity to serve them and represent their interests on the Valley Gold Committee".
You may disagree with VG members actions (Withholding funds/cancelling standing orders) but as you said yourself above you are representing their interests. If members are in favour of withholding funds, would you not have to agree with them?
Well we have at least 20 confirmed VG members that have shown an interest on this thread of looking into the option of voting to withhold funds until RD has gone. I am happy to start a list to get this going.
We can't be anything like 2,000 members surely? Can we have a definitive number so that we can quantify the 10% required?
Do we have any more VG members not yet declared their willingness to support a general meeting?
From memory, membership is around 1980 - but I'm not going to support a meeting just to be disruptive and I doubt the chair will either. It needs to have substance.
Paul and I are not slow to challenge the club regarding the current situation, it has been openly discussed at the last two committee meetings - but we believe the success of the academy is something that remains in all our best interests.
Can I suggest people hold fire on cancelling while we establish whether we can call a meeting?
@rikofold would you be willing to propose a meeting immediately?
Of members? You'd need 200 there, that's unlikely - and to what end? Both Paul and I strongly disagree that withholding funds from the Academy is in members' interests, and I've explained countless times why. It will only harm the academy and it's the wrong target. It will damage our club in the long term not least because it's hard work building the membership.
Surely the target should be the owner and this won't touch him.
"My role on the Supporters’ Trust board helps me to be particularly sensitive to those things our supporters value, and I’m privileged to have the opportunity to serve them and represent their interests on the Valley Gold Committee".
You may disagree with VG members actions (Withholding funds/cancelling standing orders) but as you said yourself above you are representing their interests. If members are in favour of withholding funds, would you not have to agree with them?
Yes, their interests not their wishes. Someone has to remain above the emotion of it all and keep the long view. Valley Gold is the wrong target and self defeating.
Can I suggest people hold fire on cancelling while we establish whether we can call a meeting?
@rikofold would you be willing to propose a meeting immediately?
Of members? You'd need 200 there, that's unlikely - and to what end? Both Paul and I strongly disagree that withholding funds from the Academy is in members' interests, and I've explained countless times why. It will only harm the academy and it's the wrong target. It will damage our club in the long term not least because it's hard work building the membership.
Surely the target should be the owner and this won't touch him.
"My role on the Supporters’ Trust board helps me to be particularly sensitive to those things our supporters value, and I’m privileged to have the opportunity to serve them and represent their interests on the Valley Gold Committee".
You may disagree with VG members actions (Withholding funds/cancelling standing orders) but as you said yourself above you are representing their interests. If members are in favour of withholding funds, would you not have to agree with them?
Yes, their interests not their wishes. Someone has to remain above the emotion of it all and keep the long view. Valley Gold is the wrong target and self defeating.
Is the role of the Academy and Valley Gold, as a source of its funds, to develop players for the benefit of Charlton Athletic FC or Roland Duchatelet's pocket?
Well we have at least 20 confirmed VG members that have shown an interest on this thread of looking into the option of voting to withhold funds until RD has gone. I am happy to start a list to get this going.
We can't be anything like 2,000 members surely? Can we have a definitive number so that we can quantify the 10% required?
Do we have any more VG members not yet declared their willingness to support a general meeting?
From memory, membership is around 1980 - but I'm not going to support a meeting just to be disruptive and I doubt the chair will either. It needs to have substance.
Paul and I are not slow to challenge the club regarding the current situation, it has been openly discussed at the last two committee meetings - but we believe the success of the academy is something that remains in all our best interests.
The whole point is to be disruptive in order to get rid of Duchatalet. You are running against the wind in your Trust and VG roles aren't you?
Well we have at least 20 confirmed VG members that have shown an interest on this thread of looking into the option of voting to withhold funds until RD has gone. I am happy to start a list to get this going.
We can't be anything like 2,000 members surely? Can we have a definitive number so that we can quantify the 10% required?
Do we have any more VG members not yet declared their willingness to support a general meeting?
From memory, membership is around 1980 - but I'm not going to support a meeting just to be disruptive and I doubt the chair will either. It needs to have substance.
Paul and I are not slow to challenge the club regarding the current situation, it has been openly discussed at the last two committee meetings - but we believe the success of the academy is something that remains in all our best interests.
So if enough people want a meeting you & the chair will refuse to hold a meeting,is this correct? If so i would recommend people withdraw from Valley Gold,also how do you expect to canvass the members opinions if there are no meetings.
Let me add this. If Paul and I were to become persuaded that the club intended to misuse the funds such that it would compromise the aims of Valley Gold, then we would be remiss not to act. I don't think KM's performance in Dublin is enough, and youth player sales are nothing new.
So if valley gold did not contribute towards the development of young players for Miere to sell the owner would not lose out?
They majority of players take several years to develop into players of value. Do you really think that turning off the tap now will stop the club selling those that have, or do you recognise its impact is most likely to be felt further down the line when RD might have sold up?
I concede that if this is their sole business plan - and I'm not persuaded it is - then that raises fairly fundamental questions regarding the scheme. But whilst KM's words about the proposition angered me, I need to be convinced it is more than the usual klutz at play.
Comments
Ben Hayes 3113
We can't be anything like 2,000 members surely?
Can we have a definitive number so that we can quantify the 10% required?
Do we have any more VG members not yet declared their willingness to support a general meeting?
Best keep VG membership No. off here.
So KM stated in her interview that people will want to come Charlton to watch future prem players to play in the first team and then sold once attracted interest.
So why are Valley Gold members standing by and funding for players to come in to play a few games and be sold on?
Yes we've had it a few times when we've needed the sale but KM has made it fully aware that it's their business plan to do it all the time for nearly all youth players.
Valley Gold members should offer a revolt of pulling out their funding as a big group to hit their profit margins and make their plan stall.
If even 200 people pull out at once that would be £24000 at least! Not the biggest of losses but more losses to go alongside ticket slumps, revenue from inside the ground etc.
Surely hitting them in the most capable ways will be most effective in the long run..
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/70665/vg-members-wanting-to-call-a-meeting
You don't have to think she's the best CEO in the world to benefit from having an exec in the room.
Surely the target should be the owner and this won't touch him.
"My role on the Supporters’ Trust board helps me to be particularly sensitive to those things our supporters value, and I’m privileged to have the opportunity to serve them and represent their interests on the Valley Gold Committee".
http://www.valleygold.org.uk/who-we-are/committee/
You may disagree with VG members actions (Withholding funds/cancelling standing orders) but as you said yourself above you are representing their interests. If members are in favour of withholding funds, would you not have to agree with them?
Paul and I are not slow to challenge the club regarding the current situation, it has been openly discussed at the last two committee meetings - but we believe the success of the academy is something that remains in all our best interests.
I concede that if this is their sole business plan - and I'm not persuaded it is - then that raises fairly fundamental questions regarding the scheme. But whilst KM's words about the proposition angered me, I need to be convinced it is more than the usual klutz at play.