What should be happening, is members of the scheme have a vote. Henry has made a perfectly reasonable suggestion for a general meeting which shouldn't have got the response it has in certain quarters.
For what it's worth which is eff all, I think that people have changed their view since the start of this thread.
I've followed it since the start, must have too much occasional free time.
At the start, a number of the responses to members anger were focused on the technicality of VG rather than the members intent.
It pressed the wrong button for me as a potential member, and must have been worse for long term members and fans who have been longer supporters than me.
I also saw a change in approach as realisation dawned that the traditional communications had totally broken down and this was driven both by the comments and also the continued lack of discussions With the club.
I must admit, I can't get past those initial technical responses. I decided I would wait until tonight and expected a swift update. But I would be more patient now if the initial responses were more reasonable. I think there was a degree of - how many times you idiots - in the tone. These are people who pay a lot of money voluntarily into the scheme. Ok Rikofold puts a lot of free time into the scheme, but that doesn't mean paying members views should be undermined or belittled.
But you are not being undermined or belittled today, are you? Surely a degree of patience with fellow fans giving up their own time on your behalf could be afforded?
My anger at the lack of respect of somebody afforded to people giving their money was not released, but frozen. Had the initial response been more understanding, I wouldn't - admittedly be seething now. It probably is fair to wait until tomorrow, but I have been biting my tongue for a week.
I think the fan reps should call a meeting and propose indefinite suspension of payments to CAFC in order to protect the income, i.e. people's willingness to contribute. If everybody leaves it will cause a lot of long-term damage to the scheme, but if the money is ring-fenced for now it achieves the same object. This has been proposed before by previous committee members, I think, although I can't remember what was agreed.
If the fan reps vote for this motion then it's up to the chair, who I would regard as genuinely independent. However, if the motion falls then there should be a campaign to get everyone to cancel, which would have similar effect but with any damage the consequence of the committee's own decision.
More generally, the problem with Valley Gold is that the fan reps are effectively selected by the chair. As it is a private members' club I don't know whether this is legally robust, but the Valley Party solicitor has previously offered to investigate this issue and that could be arranged, I'm sure - however, I'm not offering any view as to their suitability in saying that. I'm pretty confident the club is not allowed to have control because it is also the main beneficiary of the lottery.
I'm going to PM Rik tomorrow and offer to join on the basis that he confirms on this thread that monies from VG will not be released to the club unless a poll of members obtains a decent level of backing on a internet poll which I will find out how to set up.
I reckon a backing of 40% of voters to be above 30% of members seems reasonable/reasonable for any one I initiative but this could be trialled on something very small to see if the percentages work because of the number of VG members who vote is a lot higher than the turnout in a general election, these numbers would need to be increased 50% and 35% (maybe)
Anyway this is all just a suggestion as to how to make the spend more transparent.
I must say that I am keen to find out what was discussed but I am not pointing the finger at rik. My guess is that the meeting went on for longer than usual and rik and Paul I guess would want to agree a summary before releasing a statement.
I have no expectations that KM would understand anger and I would expect her to resist her customers wishes. Perhaps the fact that we are only 2%, she might think that it is worth calling our bluff because loosing just 2% of income is no great loss.
I know the meeting did go ahead and I'm sure @rikofold will do his best to get a statement issued.
We also know that the fans' reps were going to raise serious concerns, so I can only imagine that it would not have been an easy meeting. If the statement is from Valley Gold, then guess it would need agreement from the committee, so not just a case of someone coming on here with an update or blow by blow account of the meeting...
I'm in the same boat as many - have been in VG since the early days but have been questioning it recently. At the end of the day, the aim of VG is to support the Academy. If you no longer believe in that goal under the current regime, then you have every right to cancel - it is an individual decision. I'm going to sit on the fence on this one for a bit longer, but fully understand why others are jumping off.
We have recently received a number of messages from members concerning the operation of Valley Gold.
Valley Gold and the Jackpot are overseen by the Charlton Club Management Committee, which consists of two representatives of the football club, two supporters’ representatives and an independent Chair. This is laid down in the Rules of Charlton Club, and the scheme could not operate without any of these officers.
The objective of Charlton Club is to operate as a Small Society Lottery under the Gambling Act 2005, with the principal aim of providing financial backing for Charlton’s Academy in its efforts to develop talented young footballers.
At a meeting of the full Management Committee on Monday 11th January 2016, the issue of members’ concerns that their funds were not going to be used for the desired purpose was raised.
The Charlton Club committee was therefore keen to re-establish and further clarify the football club’s stance regarding the Academy and the part this plays in bringing players through to the first team.
The football club explained that CAFC’s proposition is to develop the best of English talent for progression through to the first team – this is also in line with the youth development aims of the newly branded English Football League. The club felt the success of this approach was evidenced by the number of Academy graduates who have made first team debuts over the last three seasons and those currently involved at first team level.
The football club also highlighted their £12million investment into the training ground in support of the Academy, but stressed that the realities of the professional game mean players will sometimes be sold. This will include, on occasion, players who have progressed through the Academy.
However, the supporters’ representatives felt that they could not overlook the concerns raised, and indicated that they would not consider any further major donations to the football club until later on in the year.
The Charlton Club committee would like to assure members that we have your interests in mind at all times.
Regards,
Matt Baker – Chair of Charlton Club, on behalf of the Management Committee ----------------
I've emailed Sharon thanking her for the swift response and ask her or Matt to clarify "later on in the year"
One of the biggest things that has pissed me off about the circus that is CAFC is the use of "look how many guys are coming through the academy, isn't it great....."
The amount of debuts from these kids is a sign of the clubs FAILINGS not their success.
Really irked me when KM said it in her year 4 PowerPoint presentation and it's irked me in that statement too.
So donations have now ceased because the football club couldn't give the two fans representatives decent answers on the questions asked ? That seems like the best position and if I'm right anyone who was considering quitting will surely be satisfied that they should stay in now ?
So donations have now ceased because the football club couldn't give the two fans representatives decent answers on the questions asked ? That seems like the best position and if I'm right anyone who was considering quitting will surely be satisfied that they should stay in now ?
Doesn't say that. Says no major donations until later in the year!
So small donations will continue?
You have to lol at that statement. written by the club?
Want to know what was actually said at the meeting, was KM comments in Dublin about the club being a farm for Premier League clubs challenged? and what was the answer?
So donations have now ceased because the football club couldn't give the two fans representatives decent answers on the questions asked ? That seems like the best position and if I'm right anyone who was considering quitting will surely be satisfied that they should stay in now ?
No, that isn't what has been said.
It says "until later in the year" but doesn't specify when that it.
It could be until June in which case nothing has changed. Not a criticism but it isn't specific.
I have asked Sharon to ask Matt and she has said that she will do so. I have to say that is very efficient of her.
Comments
I've followed it since the start, must have too much occasional free time.
At the start, a number of the responses to members anger were focused on the technicality of VG rather than the members intent.
It pressed the wrong button for me as a potential member, and must have been worse for long term members and fans who have been longer supporters than me.
I also saw a change in approach as realisation dawned that the traditional communications had totally broken down and this was driven both by the comments and also the continued lack of discussions With the club.
Not seen any definitive response by today though.
I reckon a backing of 40% of voters to be above 30% of members seems reasonable/reasonable for any one I initiative but this could be trialled on something very small to see if the percentages work because of the number of VG members who vote is a lot higher than the turnout in a general election, these numbers would need to be increased 50% and 35% (maybe)
Anyway this is all just a suggestion as to how to make the spend more transparent.
I have no expectations that KM would understand anger and I would expect her to resist her customers wishes. Perhaps the fact that we are only 2%, she might think that it is worth calling our bluff because loosing just 2% of income is no great loss.
We also know that the fans' reps were going to raise serious concerns, so I can only imagine that it would not have been an easy meeting. If the statement is from Valley Gold, then guess it would need agreement from the committee, so not just a case of someone coming on here with an update or blow by blow account of the meeting...
I'm in the same boat as many - have been in VG since the early days but have been questioning it recently. At the end of the day, the aim of VG is to support the Academy. If you no longer believe in that goal under the current regime, then you have every right to cancel - it is an individual decision. I'm going to sit on the fence on this one for a bit longer, but fully understand why others are jumping off.
We have recently received a number of messages from members concerning the operation of Valley Gold.
Valley Gold and the Jackpot are overseen by the Charlton Club Management Committee, which consists of two representatives of the football club, two supporters’ representatives and an independent Chair. This is laid down in the Rules of Charlton Club, and the scheme could not operate without any of these officers.
The objective of Charlton Club is to operate as a Small Society Lottery under the Gambling Act 2005, with the principal aim of providing financial backing for Charlton’s Academy in its efforts to develop talented young footballers.
At a meeting of the full Management Committee on Monday 11th January 2016, the issue of members’ concerns that their funds were not going to be used for the desired purpose was raised.
The Charlton Club committee was therefore keen to re-establish and further clarify the football club’s stance regarding the Academy and the part this plays in bringing players through to the first team.
The football club explained that CAFC’s proposition is to develop the best of English talent for progression through to the first team – this is also in line with the youth development aims of the newly branded English Football League. The club felt the success of this approach was evidenced by the number of Academy graduates who have made first team debuts over the last three seasons and those currently involved at first team level.
The football club also highlighted their £12million investment into the training ground in support of the Academy, but stressed that the realities of the professional game mean players will sometimes be sold. This will include, on occasion, players who have progressed through the Academy.
However, the supporters’ representatives felt that they could not overlook the concerns raised, and indicated that they would not consider any further major donations to the football club until later on in the year.
The Charlton Club committee would like to assure members that we have your interests in mind at all times.
Regards,
Matt Baker – Chair of Charlton Club, on behalf of the Management Committee
----------------
I've emailed Sharon thanking her for the swift response and ask her or Matt to clarify "later on in the year"
However......
Holding any donation until later in the year is not exactly changing the fact that the next donation wasn't due until later this year in June.
Could someone from the committee please clarify what is meant by this point, and were any conditions attached.
Not digging anyone out. Honestly would like to know. Thanks.
The amount of debuts from these kids is a sign of the clubs FAILINGS not their success.
Really irked me when KM said it in her year 4 PowerPoint presentation and it's irked me in that statement too.
So small donations will continue?
You have to lol at that statement. written by the club?
It says "until later in the year" but doesn't specify when that it.
It could be until June in which case nothing has changed. Not a criticism but it isn't specific.
I have asked Sharon to ask Matt and she has said that she will do so. I have to say that is very efficient of her.