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.
Only one thing to do then boys........cancel because there you have it the committee will not back your revolt even if the majority want it, seems a very strange way to run a trust to me.
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.
Sorry Rikofold but as the saying goes your argument "doth butter no parsnips". I was going to join the call for a meeting but due to your stance on the matter I shall be cancelling my valley gold membership next week.
Sorry Rikofold but as the saying goes your argument "doth butter no parsnips". I was going to join the call for a meeting but due to your stance on the matter I shall be cancelling my valley gold membership next week.
Please stick with it for 1 more month and join the call for a meeting, I think the whole concept needs to be reviewed, I am a member of this club but was not informed of the rule changes which came into force in September 2015, or ever seen any accounts.
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.
I think you are missing the point here. You Talk as though there is some resolution to this with the current custodians from the club in place.
As you will well know, It is clear that the fan base are not happy with that and feel they need to take drastic action to make a change.
Not buying merchandise. Tea or coffee. Jackpot tickets. It will all have an effect. And possibly on people's jobs in the club elsewhere.
Agree with earlier posts. I have stopped buy anything official - other than tickets but that's hard one to get round - so make sure I don't spend a pound on merchandise, food etc.
The bottom line is all that dreadful woman seems to understand. Assuming she got that far when she read "CEO for Dummies"
It would inform the debate if there was a bit of a detailed breakdown of where the money is spent. Something like 'new minibus' £19,000, 'All part time and volunteer coaches expenses' £44,000, 'Kit and equipment £24,000'. I'm sure you get my drift.
It would inform the debate if there was a bit of a detailed breakdown of where the money is spent. Something like 'new minibus' £19,000, 'All part time and volunteer coaches expenses' £44,000, 'Kit and equipment £24,000'. I'm sure you get my drift.
I believe that something like 48% of money raised goes in winnings, a certain % on wages and the rest to good causes.
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.
That's not correct. I was responding to being asked to propose a meeting myself on the back of a handful of people - members or not - on Charlton Life expressing a view . If members want to call a meeting the rules entitle them to it, but as Rick points out there are huge logistical difficulties for doing this.
The key question is what will it achieve? Absolutely nothing in my view. 2015 donations have already gone, the next donation isn't due to go until June at the earliest. A lot can change between now and then, but if Paul and I believe that the club would not use the money correctly we will withhold it or direct it elsewhere. Even so, £100k withheld would be very unlikely to influence a change of football club policy if their business plan was founded upon being a feeder club for the Premier League.
I think many people are misunderstanding how the Valley Gold organisation works. The management committee is made up of 2 fans' reps, 2 club reps, and the Chair. I was incorrect to say that the club do not have a vote on donations - they technically do but as they will always vote the same way the supporters' reps hold the balance of power there. In practice, the club requests a donation is of a certain amount, the supporters' reps will determine whether to support the request or not. The Chair has a casting vote but would never agree to a donation if the supporters' reps determined not to support it. Of course not all donations actually go to the club, but that's tangential.
Note that there is no such thing as a 'member representative' in terms of a member being nominated (by elections or otherwise) to the management committee; the Gambling Act precludes a member from sitting on the management committee. The supporters' reps, nominated by the committee, to the best of our ability, will however (and do) strongly represent the best long term interests of members.
I do think there is an important point to be raised at the next committee meeting (in just over a week's time) regarding Katrien's comments in Dublin. Whilst I don't believe they are sufficient in themselves to justify the supporters' reps' withholding funds, I do believe at the very least the CEO should be held to account for comments that have demonstrably and adversely affected the success of the scheme, and I will pursue this personally.
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?
Let me guess - member of both the Trust and VG? I'm not a good guesser though...
When RD changed the plans for the upgrade of Sparrows Lane, which included the academy, he ignored The Trust, he ignored other sources of funding and opted to fund it all himself. That says to me that it is his academy so let him fund the whole thing himself.
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.
I think you are missing the point here. You Talk as though there is some resolution to this with the current custodians from the club in place.
As you will well know, It is clear that the fan base are not happy with that and feel they need to take drastic action to make a change.
Not buying merchandise. Tea or coffee. Jackpot tickets. It will all have an effect. And possibly on people's jobs in the club elsewhere.
No you're missing the point. Our job is to make a success of Valley Gold. That's it. Simply, it's better to have club execs than other managers on the committee because they can make immediate commitments.
With all due respect to the wider fan base - and I do understand their wish to protest - it's the members' interests - those who have committed money to the scheme for a specific purpose - Paul and I serve on the committee to represent.
Those cancelling are entitled to do so - it's your money - but with the utmost of respect targeting Valley Gold does nothing to further your protest. It may well, however, harm the club long beyond the owner has departed.
It would inform the debate if there was a bit of a detailed breakdown of where the money is spent. Something like 'new minibus' £19,000, 'All part time and volunteer coaches expenses' £44,000, 'Kit and equipment £24,000'. I'm sure you get my drift.
I'll check with Jack - actually he's probably reading this thread anyway - but I think such a breakdown was included in the latest members' newsletter. It's something on which Paul and I are holding the club to account.
When RD changed the plans for the upgrade of Sparrows Lane, which included the academy, he ignored The Trust, he ignored other sources of funding and opted to fund it all himself. That says to me that it is his academy so let him fund the whole thing himself.
What's the Trust got to do with this exactly, you're not the first person to mention this but I've got my Valley Gold hat on here, it's nothing to do with the Supporters' Trust at all.
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.
I think you are missing the point here. You Talk as though there is some resolution to this with the current custodians from the club in place.
As you will well know, It is clear that the fan base are not happy with that and feel they need to take drastic action to make a change.
Not buying merchandise. Tea or coffee. Jackpot tickets. It will all have an effect. And possibly on people's jobs in the club elsewhere.
No you're missing the point. Our job is to make a success of Valley Gold. That's it. Simply, it's better to have club execs than other managers on the committee because they can make immediate commitments.
With all due respect to the wider fan base - and I do understand their wish to protest - it's the members' interests - those who have committed money to the scheme for a specific purpose - Paul and I serve on the committee to represent.
Those cancelling are entitled to do so - it's your money - but with the utmost of respect targeting Valley Gold does nothing to further your protest. It may well, however, harm the club long beyond the owner has departed.
Surely, if RD etc left, and someone new took over, it would be simple to start up again, all details are in place, and most owners would be pleased if fans supported the coaching of their youth players, unlike RD who wants to be master of everything
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.
Quite disappointed to see that your view seems simplistic enough to imply that the aim of such a meeting would "just to be disruptive".
Rikofold, if the owner is still here in two years, do you think that VG will still be operating? If and when the owner goes within a year, I'm sure lapsed members will return.
If the scheme collapsed we would have to dissolve it. To start again would cost a lot of money - solicitors etc - and we would not have access to the previous membership data due to the Data Protection Act.
I think a number of people see a meeting as a way of confronting KM on their terms, and get an explanation of her Dublin comments regarding the future of the club being a feeder club for EPL clubs, being in a relaxed meeting with with 4 others, she will probably laugh your question off in her normal way. A meeting of 200 VG members, will be a different matter. I think the fans reps should be proactive and call a meeting, if you say the funds raised are insignificant why are we bothering.
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.
Quite disappointed to see that your view seems simplistic enough to imply that the aim of such a meeting would "just to be disruptive".
I was referring directly to Rick's post. My point is this: no-one's actually specified what they think a meeting would achieve yet though, what are its objectives? This is my point - you can call a meeting, but what for? To stop a donation? There's not one for 6 months at least. To change the committee? It works very well for its purpose, to run Valley Gold, as it is. To change the rules? Only the committee can do that and it's costly to change them.
I'm genuinely confused as to what people are hoping to achieve.
This is how David Joyes accounted for the use of donations in the most recent member newsletter (thanks Jack):
Use of donations by Valley Gold By David Joyes – Chief Financial Officer, Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd
As most members will know, Valley Gold came into existence to help fund the return of the then ‘homeless’ Charlton Athletic FC back to its home at The Valley. Following the return of the club to the Valley in December 1992, Valley Gold repositioned its objectives to support the funding of the development of CAFC’s young players through the Youth Academy based at CAFC’s training ground at Sparrows Lane in New Eltham.
Youth Academy football for professional clubs is currently governed principally by the Premier League under the Elite Player Performance Plan (“EPPP”) since its inception in 2012. All clubs are assessed on a 3 yearly basis and are graded from category 4 (lowest category) up to category 1 (top category).
Categorisation is based on a number of factors, including facilities, staffing levels and quality of coaching.
Charlton Athletic FC’s Youth Academy is currently assessed as Category 2 and requires a substantial facilities development at Sparrows Lane in order to be considered for assessment as Category 1. Becoming a Category 1 club is important for recruiting and retaining the very best youth talent as it means they are playing week in/week out against, in theory, the better players at the top clubs (e.g. Arsenal/Chelsea/West Ham/Spurs). Category 1 clubs are also able to freely ‘scout’ lower category clubs.
Average costs of running a Category 2 Youth Academy are £1.6m per annum. From a financial perspective this represents the 2nd biggest cost centre of the club; largest of course is the 1st team squad. This is a huge level of cost to support each year which is why the Football Club continues to be so grateful to Valley Gold members for its fundraising efforts.
In the 2014-15 season Valley Gold donated in the region of £125,000 to the Youth Academy. This donation funded the following:
1) Tournaments/competitions – this is an invaluable part of a young player’s development, especially if the tournament is overseas where players face different styles, techniques and systems. A real value-added benefit provided by Valley Gold donations that wouldn’t be possible otherwise dueto budgetary constraints.
2) New mini-bus – Valley Gold donations funded a much needed additional branded mini-bus to transport quality young players from outside of the local area. Without this donation, certain players located further afield would not have been able to get to Sparrows Lane, reducing the quality of the youth teams.
3) Training kit – CAFC receive a set amount of ‘Gift of Kit’ through its deal with Nike, however this does not fully meet the requirements of the Youth Academy and therefore Valley Gold donations ensure all Youth Academy players are fully kitted to an excellent standard.
4) Coach travel for away games – youth teams across all age ranges will play games at other grounds and at U18 and U21 level there are significantnationwide travel requirements as part of the EPPP league programme, in addition to FA Youth Cup and Premier League U21 Cup games.
5) Advanced centre costs – to improve player recruitment at youth level the Youth Academy runs Advanced Centres away from Sparrows Lane. In addition to the centre operated by Charlton Athletic Community Trust, the club currently operates centres, including one in Ashford. It is worth noting that Joe Gomez came through this route several years ago.
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?
Let me guess - member of both the Trust and VG? I'm not a good guesser though...
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.
Quite disappointed to see that your view seems simplistic enough to imply that the aim of such a meeting would "just to be disruptive".
I was referring directly to Rick's post. My point is this: no-one's actually specified what they think a meeting would achieve yet though, what are its objectives? This is my point - you can call a meeting, but what for? To stop a donation? There's not one for 6 months at least. To change the committee? It works very well for its purpose, to run Valley Gold, as it is. To change the rules? Only the committee can do that and it's costly to change them.
I'm genuinely confused as to what people are hoping to achieve.
Embarrass Meire in front of the fans. Discuss the shambles in a formal context she cannot control. Invite the media. Stem the tide of cancellations otherwise.
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?
Let me guess - member of both the Trust and VG? I'm not a good guesser though...
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.
Quite disappointed to see that your view seems simplistic enough to imply that the aim of such a meeting would "just to be disruptive".
I was referring directly to Rick's post. My point is this: no-one's actually specified what they think a meeting would achieve yet though, what are its objectives? This is my point - you can call a meeting, but what for? To stop a donation? There's not one for 6 months at least. To change the committee? It works very well for its purpose, to run Valley Gold, as it is. To change the rules? Only the committee can do that and it's costly to change them.
I'm genuinely confused as to what people are hoping to achieve.
Embarrass Meire in front of the fans. Discuss the shambles in a formal context. Invite the media.
As long as they were VG members, you could invite them. As I understand it, it's a meeting between members and the committee, and to be frank I'd be amazed if KM turned up.
But my question is looking for a more specific answer than that.
If the scheme collapsed we would have to dissolve it. To start again would cost a lot of money - solicitors etc - and we would not have access to the previous membership data due to the Data Protection Act.
I thank you for your input rikofold.
You will have picked up that the purpose of the proposed General Meeting was to withhold funds from going to the football club, not just to be disruptive.
I am sure that you don't mean to, but I think that you are getting very close to the language of KM when you dismiss the views on here as not being representative of the VG membership as a whole. Of course we cannot know what all the members would want until we have a meeting but judging by this straw pole and that I have carried out amongst my non CL friends VG will collapse anyway.
If we don't find a way of keeping people like me paying into the scheme by holding a general meeting urgently, then this debate will likely be irrelevant in a couple of months.
We are gauging just how strong feeling is by this debate and am I right in saying that if we get the call from 10% that you couldn't stop the meeting? Would you want to?
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?
Let me guess - member of both the Trust and VG? I'm not a good guesser though...
Just the Trust now
What was your VG number, out of interest?
Rather you weren't able to get my personal details thanks
Comments
I think you are missing the point here. You Talk as though there is some resolution to this with the current custodians from the club in place.
As you will well know, It is clear that the fan base are not happy with that and feel they need to take drastic action to make a change.
Not buying merchandise. Tea or coffee. Jackpot tickets. It will all have an effect. And possibly on people's jobs in the club elsewhere.
The bottom line is all that dreadful woman seems to understand. Assuming she got that far when she read "CEO for Dummies"
The key question is what will it achieve? Absolutely nothing in my view. 2015 donations have already gone, the next donation isn't due to go until June at the earliest. A lot can change between now and then, but if Paul and I believe that the club would not use the money correctly we will withhold it or direct it elsewhere. Even so, £100k withheld would be very unlikely to influence a change of football club policy if their business plan was founded upon being a feeder club for the Premier League.
I think many people are misunderstanding how the Valley Gold organisation works. The management committee is made up of 2 fans' reps, 2 club reps, and the Chair. I was incorrect to say that the club do not have a vote on donations - they technically do but as they will always vote the same way the supporters' reps hold the balance of power there. In practice, the club requests a donation is of a certain amount, the supporters' reps will determine whether to support the request or not. The Chair has a casting vote but would never agree to a donation if the supporters' reps determined not to support it. Of course not all donations actually go to the club, but that's tangential.
Note that there is no such thing as a 'member representative' in terms of a member being nominated (by elections or otherwise) to the management committee; the Gambling Act precludes a member from sitting on the management committee. The supporters' reps, nominated by the committee, to the best of our ability, will however (and do) strongly represent the best long term interests of members.
I do think there is an important point to be raised at the next committee meeting (in just over a week's time) regarding Katrien's comments in Dublin. Whilst I don't believe they are sufficient in themselves to justify the supporters' reps' withholding funds, I do believe at the very least the CEO should be held to account for comments that have demonstrably and adversely affected the success of the scheme, and I will pursue this personally.
That says to me that it is his academy so let him fund the whole thing himself.
With all due respect to the wider fan base - and I do understand their wish to protest - it's the members' interests - those who have committed money to the scheme for a specific purpose - Paul and I serve on the committee to represent.
Those cancelling are entitled to do so - it's your money - but with the utmost of respect targeting Valley Gold does nothing to further your protest. It may well, however, harm the club long beyond the owner has departed.
Trust = Community not Supporters
I'm genuinely confused as to what people are hoping to achieve.
Use of donations by Valley Gold
By David Joyes – Chief Financial Officer, Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd
As most members will know, Valley Gold came into existence to help fund the return of the then ‘homeless’ Charlton Athletic FC back to its home at The Valley. Following the return of the club to the Valley in December 1992, Valley Gold repositioned its objectives to support the funding of the development of CAFC’s young players through the Youth Academy based at CAFC’s training ground at Sparrows Lane in New Eltham.
Youth Academy football for professional clubs is currently governed principally by the Premier League under the Elite Player Performance Plan (“EPPP”) since its inception in 2012. All clubs are assessed on a 3 yearly basis and are graded from category 4 (lowest category) up to category 1 (top category).
Categorisation is based on a number of factors, including facilities, staffing levels and quality of coaching.
Charlton Athletic FC’s Youth Academy is currently assessed as Category 2 and requires a substantial facilities development at Sparrows Lane in order to be considered for assessment as Category 1. Becoming a Category 1 club is important for recruiting and retaining the very best youth talent as it means they are playing week in/week out against, in theory, the better players at the top clubs (e.g. Arsenal/Chelsea/West Ham/Spurs). Category 1 clubs are also able to freely ‘scout’ lower category clubs.
Average costs of running a Category 2 Youth Academy are £1.6m per annum. From a financial perspective this represents the 2nd biggest cost centre of the club; largest of course is the 1st team squad. This is a huge level of cost to support each year which is why the Football Club continues to be so grateful to Valley Gold members for its fundraising efforts.
In the 2014-15 season Valley Gold donated in the region of £125,000 to the Youth Academy. This donation funded the following:
1) Tournaments/competitions – this is an invaluable part of a young player’s development, especially if the tournament is overseas where players face different styles, techniques and systems. A real value-added benefit provided by Valley Gold donations that wouldn’t be possible otherwise dueto budgetary constraints.
2) New mini-bus – Valley Gold donations funded a much needed additional branded mini-bus to transport quality young players from outside of the local area. Without this donation, certain players located further afield would not have been able to get to Sparrows Lane, reducing the quality of the youth teams.
3) Training kit – CAFC receive a set amount of ‘Gift of Kit’ through its deal with Nike, however this does not fully meet the requirements of the Youth Academy and therefore Valley Gold donations ensure all Youth Academy players are fully kitted to an excellent standard.
4) Coach travel for away games – youth teams across all age ranges will play games at other grounds and at U18 and U21 level there are significantnationwide travel requirements as part of the EPPP league programme, in addition to FA Youth Cup and Premier League U21 Cup games.
5) Advanced centre costs – to improve player recruitment at youth level the Youth Academy runs Advanced Centres away from Sparrows Lane. In addition to the centre operated by Charlton Athletic Community Trust, the club currently operates centres, including one in Ashford. It is worth noting that Joe Gomez came through this route several years ago.
But my question is looking for a more specific answer than that.
You will have picked up that the purpose of the proposed General Meeting was to withhold funds from going to the football club, not just to be disruptive.
I am sure that you don't mean to, but I think that you are getting very close to the language of KM when you dismiss the views on here as not being representative of the VG membership as a whole. Of course we cannot know what all the members would want until we have a meeting but judging by this straw pole and that I have carried out amongst my non CL friends VG will collapse anyway.
If we don't find a way of keeping people like me paying into the scheme by holding a general meeting urgently, then this debate will likely be irrelevant in a couple of months.
We are gauging just how strong feeling is by this debate and am I right in saying that if we get the call from 10% that you couldn't stop the meeting? Would you want to?