really don't get what people have against surveys, they inform us all of real fan opinion pretty darned valuable, but hey ho.
When I had a rare meeting with KM - I recommended to her in very strong terms, to get out to fans and reassure them of the business plan. She ignored that.
I beg to differ razil, KM obviously reflected on your recommendations and decided to take your advice by reassuring us all of their business plan in that interview in Dublin.
I doubt that she will take your advice in future :-)
Herein lies the problem. By your own words as ex Chair of CASTrust it seems pretty clear that Miere has consistently declined meetings, failed to listen and ignored ovatures from The Trust since day one. They don't care about supporters trusts. Supporters are nothing more than paying customers to them. I suspect if truth be known that Meire would be over the moon if The Trust just disappeared.
The Trust is an irritant to KM, she will say she will listen and also wants dialogue with her customers but at the end of the day she is only paying lip service to the trust.
Herein lies the problem. By your own words as ex Chair of CASTrust it seems pretty clear that Miere has consistently declined meetings, failed to listen and ignored ovatures from The Trust since day one. They don't care about supporters trusts. Supporters are nothing more than paying customers to them. I suspect if truth be known that Meire would be over the moon if The Trust just disappeared.
The Trust is an irritant to KM, she will say she will listen and also wants dialogue with her customers but at the end of the day she is only paying lip service to the trust.
Please, let's not make this another discussion about the Trust - plenty of other threads for that. But now is not the time anyway. Channel your efforts positively, not in bickering and point scoring.
Anyway, back to the thread. Well done Airman. He's not always been my cup of tea in the past, but he knows what he's doing when it comes to this sort of thing, so fair play.
I would say this, but I'm incredulous at some of the criticism on here. We're not perfect, definitely not above criticism, but some of it is so far off beam and opportunistic it's, ahem, beyond parody.
Firstly we were among the first to express concern at this regime. We were also the first to publicly organise supporters - members or not - to discuss what they wanted to do next. Some of those quick to criticise now were first in line to throw mud at the idea of the public meeting, conveniently forgotten I see.
Yet a handful of games and a few wins after the public meeting people seemed to forget the woes and looked forward to the new season, leaving us somewhat in limbo.
Yet throughout this time the Trust has continued to work the very action - yes, ACTION, Henry - that the supporters demanded of us and reiterated twice since: to get the club talking to us, to tell us about their plans for the club, to get a structure for ongoing meaningful dialogue. They started to talk to us more meaningfully in November but the club has since - shall we say - moved very (too) slowly in getting the formal dialogue going.
We have very consistently and frequently communicated through a variety of channels, including Charlton Life, that we are leading on one aspect of action: to influence the club directly through conversation. Others are leading on the protests.
The time may well come when we abandon the option we're leading on, but criticism that we're doing nothing is absolutely misplaced. I also think it's a bit rich when we were criticised for doing something earlier in the year, and when it's by people not prepared to join the Trust and strengthen our arm.
We have at least been consistent. We've not been silent on it. We've taken a lot of criticism regardless of what we do, and the actions of previous boards are conflated with the current one as if time hasn't passed or circumstances haven't changed. It may not be to everyone's timescales, it may not be everyone's preference, but we're a mutual society working to the benefit of our members - our objectives are somewhat broader of course, but it seems incongruous for those who were telling us 9 months "you don't speak for me" to now be demanding we're leading protests for everyone.
I appreciate what all involved with the Trust have done so far, and I definitely feel that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't in the minds of some people here, so I have some sympathy with that also. I do feel however, that there has been a sharp turn in fans attitudes lately, and I believe that more people want RD and Meire out than ever before. I was very much in the camp that was hoping for them to change their ways and run the club properly, but I think it has become perfectly clear that they will run the club exactly how they want to, and to hell with the fans or anyone else that may question them.
With that said, it's a big step to move away from dialogue completely, and if I were part of the Trust I would want to ensure that the door to any meaningful discussion was closed properly before pulling out. I would be interested to know if during this public silence, you've managed any kind of positive steps forward, or are you getting the silent treatment too? Obviously you don't have to answer that, I'm just keen to understand if at this point, it's still a worthwhile objective.
It may be worth mentioning that I became a Trust member around the time of the Woolwich meeting. I felt that we were on the same page in terms of how we thought about the regime and you seemed to be the only people willing to take them on. I still believe you are best placed to take them on, but I'm wondering if you are currently a little behind the game in regard to representing how members feel right now. I personally would like to see a fresh survey sent out to members to gauge opinion on whether they still support dialogue as the priority or whether things should be escalated.
I would say this, but I'm incredulous at some of the criticism on here. We're not perfect, definitely not above criticism, but some of it is so far off beam and opportunistic it's, ahem, beyond parody.
Firstly we were among the first to express concern at this regime. We were also the first to publicly organise supporters - members or not - to discuss what they wanted to do next. Some of those quick to criticise now were first in line to throw mud at the idea of the public meeting, conveniently forgotten I see.
Yet a handful of games and a few wins after the public meeting people seemed to forget the woes and looked forward to the new season, leaving us somewhat in limbo.
Yet throughout this time the Trust has continued to work the very action - yes, ACTION, Henry - that the supporters demanded of us and reiterated twice since: to get the club talking to us, to tell us about their plans for the club, to get a structure for ongoing meaningful dialogue. They started to talk to us more meaningfully in November but the club has since - shall we say - moved very (too) slowly in getting the formal dialogue going.
We have very consistently and frequently communicated through a variety of channels, including Charlton Life, that we are leading on one aspect of action: to influence the club directly through conversation. Others are leading on the protests.
The time may well come when we abandon the option we're leading on, but criticism that we're doing nothing is absolutely misplaced. I also think it's a bit rich when we were criticised for doing something earlier in the year, and when it's by people not prepared to join the Trust and strengthen our arm.
We have at least been consistent. We've not been silent on it. We've taken a lot of criticism regardless of what we do, and the actions of previous boards are conflated with the current one as if time hasn't passed or circumstances haven't changed. It may not be to everyone's timescales, it may not be everyone's preference, but we're a mutual society working to the benefit of our members - our objectives are somewhat broader of course, but it seems incongruous for those who were telling us 9 months "you don't speak for me" to now be demanding we're leading protests for everyone.
I appreciate what all involved with the Trust have done so far, and I definitely feel that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't in the minds of some people here, so I have some sympathy with that also. I do feel however, that there has been a sharp turn in fans attitudes lately, and I believe that more people want RD and Meire out than ever before. I was very much in the camp that was hoping for them to change their ways and run the club properly, but I think it has become perfectly clear that they will run the club exactly how they want to, and to hell with the fans or anyone else that may question them.
With that said, it's a big step to move away from dialogue completely, and if I were part of the Trust I would want to ensure that the door to any meaningful discussion was closed properly before pulling out. I would be interested to know if during this public silence, you've managed any kind of positive steps forward, or are you getting the silent treatment too? Obviously you don't have to answer that, I'm just keen to understand if at this point, it's still a worthwhile objective.
It may be worth mentioning that I became a Trust member around the time of the Woolwich meeting. I felt that we were on the same page in terms of how we thought about the regime and you seemed to be the only people willing to take them on. I still believe you are best placed to take them on, but I'm wondering if you are currently a little behind the game in regard to representing how members feel right now. I personally would like to see a fresh survey sent out to members to gauge opinion on whether they still support dialogue as the priority or whether things should be escalated.
That, I think, is perfectly fair criticism and fairly put. We've said before that we won't offer a running commentary on every detail, so it's reasonable to consider we're behind the game in the absence of the full picture.
The reality is that things have moved very quickly and it's not so straightforward nor perhaps wise for us to do the same - imagine if we went on a fantastic run like we've done the last two seasons and fan mood turned round again, for the third year running. And if we'd abandoned our efforts we'd be criticised for being hasty, short term, lacking judgement. All the things we're criticised for when we take the opposite action. Ho hum...
In answer to your specific question, yes we have continued conversations away from the public gaze but we have yet to see the club organise the strategy group which we felt was the significant commitment from our discussions and made public at the fans meeting. We weren't impressed with the Target 20k formulation - completely different from what we thought we'd gained agreement for - and the club were shown a metaphorical yellow card over that.
That they've still yet to commit in action to the main group suggests to us we're being 'Varnied'. Nonetheless, if we pull out for no good reason we might find future boards don't want to engage either. It's a challenging game of Jenga, because we need to be visible in what's going on but equally we don't want to be the cause of the final topple in terms of the opportunity for a diplomatic and lasting solution.
We have a Trust board meeting in the coming week and this will be the centre of the conversation.
I thought Airman came across very well in the Standard, if I might bring us back on topic.
I would say this, but I'm incredulous at some of the criticism on here. We're not perfect, definitely not above criticism, but some of it is so far off beam and opportunistic it's, ahem, beyond parody.
Firstly we were among the first to express concern at this regime. We were also the first to publicly organise supporters - members or not - to discuss what they wanted to do next. Some of those quick to criticise now were first in line to throw mud at the idea of the public meeting, conveniently forgotten I see.
Yet a handful of games and a few wins after the public meeting people seemed to forget the woes and looked forward to the new season, leaving us somewhat in limbo.
Yet throughout this time the Trust has continued to work the very action - yes, ACTION, Henry - that the supporters demanded of us and reiterated twice since: to get the club talking to us, to tell us about their plans for the club, to get a structure for ongoing meaningful dialogue. They started to talk to us more meaningfully in November but the club has since - shall we say - moved very (too) slowly in getting the formal dialogue going.
We have very consistently and frequently communicated through a variety of channels, including Charlton Life, that we are leading on one aspect of action: to influence the club directly through conversation. Others are leading on the protests.
The time may well come when we abandon the option we're leading on, but criticism that we're doing nothing is absolutely misplaced. I also think it's a bit rich when we were criticised for doing something earlier in the year, and when it's by people not prepared to join the Trust and strengthen our arm.
We have at least been consistent. We've not been silent on it. We've taken a lot of criticism regardless of what we do, and the actions of previous boards are conflated with the current one as if time hasn't passed or circumstances haven't changed. It may not be to everyone's timescales, it may not be everyone's preference, but we're a mutual society working to the benefit of our members - our objectives are somewhat broader of course, but it seems incongruous for those who were telling us 9 months "you don't speak for me" to now be demanding we're leading protests for everyone.
I appreciate what all involved with the Trust have done so far, and I definitely feel that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't in the minds of some people here, so I have some sympathy with that also. I do feel however, that there has been a sharp turn in fans attitudes lately, and I believe that more people want RD and Meire out than ever before. I was very much in the camp that was hoping for them to change their ways and run the club properly, but I think it has become perfectly clear that they will run the club exactly how they want to, and to hell with the fans or anyone else that may question them.
With that said, it's a big step to move away from dialogue completely, and if I were part of the Trust I would want to ensure that the door to any meaningful discussion was closed properly before pulling out. I would be interested to know if during this public silence, you've managed any kind of positive steps forward, or are you getting the silent treatment too? Obviously you don't have to answer that, I'm just keen to understand if at this point, it's still a worthwhile objective.
It may be worth mentioning that I became a Trust member around the time of the Woolwich meeting. I felt that we were on the same page in terms of how we thought about the regime and you seemed to be the only people willing to take them on. I still believe you are best placed to take them on, but I'm wondering if you are currently a little behind the game in regard to representing how members feel right now. I personally would like to see a fresh survey sent out to members to gauge opinion on whether they still support dialogue as the priority or whether things should be escalated.
Much appreciate your understanding, and you're right the question you are asking is best not answered - for now- in public for tactical reasons.
their position has been made clear many times in my view
Actually @razil, with all due respect and sincerety, I've been entirely unaware of their position until about 5 minutes ago. I've been on CharltonLife pretty much constantly recently what with the protests and various bits of news, and similarly I've been monitoring a lot of social media - i.e Twitter. Something tells me I may actually be keeping my finger on the pulse a bit more than the average fan at the moment.
I'll let you know how I found out their position 5 minutes ago; I checked their website. To be completely fair, - there are a few articles on the main page, and I've bookmarked them and will read them when I'm on the train home. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't have to go on to their website and purposefully check for their position though?
Maybe I'm wrong, but when thousands of supporters of a given football club are protesting - and many individual fans have given their views on the radio - I expect to know the position of their Supporters Trust without having to dig it out myself on their website? I really would've expected to have been made aware in other ways; how come I know the views of individual fans (Olly, Mike and others from the radio for instance) but not our own Supporters Trust? (I may remember an article from around Boxing Day - I'm not sure if that was from The Trust. However, I certainly cannot remember its content.)
I understand the Trust are no doubt running another survey or something similar to gauge member feelings: but given the extremity of this situation I still find the silence and lack of action to be deeply disappointing.
Now isn't the time for starting an argument internally, that plays in to the hands of the regime, so I'm not trying to start one. However, I'm offering my personal point of view - not only as a concerned Charlton fan, but a lapsed trust member who didn't renew his membership because.. well, he found it relatively easy to forget the trust even existed.
The Trust, as an idea at least, is a very important concept and organisation. However I fear it could be doing a bit more to be relevant and providing a voice.
A little bit harsh to criticise an organisation for being silent on the subject of the protests when by your own admission they have a number of links / articles / opportunities to contribute to the protests on the first page of their easily accessible website. That sounds like hypocrisy to me.
As a founder of the Trust alongside @razil I completely agree with you that supporters Trusts are incredibly important, and increasingly so as English football continues to change, however as a board member until very recently I appreciate there really is a complicated role to play and I think they're playing it fairly well.
I fear you've misunderstood my point; and in some ways proved it - I didn't even know those articles existed. I had a brief recollection of one article, and I'm not even sure if that was from the trust now I think about it more.
It's not much use having access to a collection of articles if you don't know they exist, that was my situation. I have no reason to regularly check the Trust website, I'm not a member anymore nor have I heard a great deal about them of late - little comments about them here and there, but nothing substantial enough to want to make me check their site.
You can't simply communicate through your own website. Communicating solely through your website is excellent if you know your entire target audience visits it, but that's not the case with The Trust. If you check any analytics you have, I'm willing to hazard a guess that the monthly average for unique views is less than the numbr of subscribers? If that's the case, only communicating via the website is a good way to shrink your membership too. What's more, there's a very obvious bias by only communicating via channels you control: people who don't agree with you probably wont be taking the effort to read your site.
Your intended audience are the fans of Charlton, and that audience is larger than just the visitors of the trust website, and as such I feel the Trust needs to be doing more to engage and communicate with fans as a whole. What's more, they should be reassuring those same fans that they are aware of the current circumstances and are intending on doing something.
I just think you're expecting far, far too much from an organisation that is really driven by a handful of volunteers. Very easy to criticise and say "they should be doing this, that and the other" but realistically they only have a finite amount of time and resource to expend and need to choose how best to do that, at the moment I think they're spending it fairly well.
Because the protests and other fan actions haven't been driven by a handful of volunteers? The success they've had has been pretty incredible really, just ask James Corden or Stan Collymore.
Look, I've hijacked this thread now - and that was never my intention. Perhaps it's time for a new thread, but as far as I'm concerned I've made my own opinion known and that's all I wanted to do.
Apologies to Airman Brown and other people who came here to discuss the topic of his interview.
There is some fantastically creative work going on regarding the protests, really something to be admired.
However I would argue that it's a completely different set of skills required for what the Trust is leading. Attempting to develop a trusting relationship sufficient to sustain an open, constructive and sometimes critical conversation is an art with an essential long term consideration. Especially when you're starting from a position where they're hostile to individuals on the Trust board and other fans are briefing them against us (you know who you are).
We're not absent from the conversations about protests, nor indeed from the actions themselves at least as individuals, but it has been our Board's position up until now that the Trust's priority should continue to be leading on the long term diplomatic solution. That position may change, but not with the wind.
How strange, because someone must have commented very recently otherwise how would the Sub Standard 'understand' yesterday that RD is not prepared to sell?
When we had the trust open meeting to discuss the problems and hear different views by Charlton folk in Siberia last season, I went as a Floating voter, and Katrien was looked upon as the weak link who we needed to by pass. A year on and her credit rating with CAFC fans is lower than a Dachshund 's knackers. The Trust were looked upon as the Hawks as they were Persona non- grata with the CEO. Now everyone else, are the Hawks and the Trust are looked upon as the Doves ?
I would say this, but I'm incredulous at some of the criticism on here. We're not perfect, definitely not above criticism, but some of it is so far off beam and opportunistic it's, ahem, beyond parody.
Firstly we were among the first to express concern at this regime. We were also the first to publicly organise supporters - members or not - to discuss what they wanted to do next. Some of those quick to criticise now were first in line to throw mud at the idea of the public meeting, conveniently forgotten I see.
Yet a handful of games and a few wins after the public meeting people seemed to forget the woes and looked forward to the new season, leaving us somewhat in limbo.
Yet throughout this time the Trust has continued to work the very action - yes, ACTION, Henry - that the supporters demanded of us and reiterated twice since: to get the club talking to us, to tell us about their plans for the club, to get a structure for ongoing meaningful dialogue. They started to talk to us more meaningfully in November but the club has since - shall we say - moved very (too) slowly in getting the formal dialogue going.
We have very consistently and frequently communicated through a variety of channels, including Charlton Life, that we are leading on one aspect of action: to influence the club directly through conversation. Others are leading on the protests.
The time may well come when we abandon the option we're leading on, but criticism that we're doing nothing is absolutely misplaced. I also think it's a bit rich when we were criticised for doing something earlier in the year, and when it's by people not prepared to join the Trust and strengthen our arm.
We have at least been consistent. We've not been silent on it. We've taken a lot of criticism regardless of what we do, and the actions of previous boards are conflated with the current one as if time hasn't passed or circumstances haven't changed. It may not be to everyone's timescales, it may not be everyone's preference, but we're a mutual society working to the benefit of our members - our objectives are somewhat broader of course, but it seems incongruous for those who were telling us 9 months "you don't speak for me" to now be demanding we're leading protests for everyone.
I appreciate what all involved with the Trust have done so far, and I definitely feel that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't in the minds of some people here, so I have some sympathy with that also. I do feel however, that there has been a sharp turn in fans attitudes lately, and I believe that more people want RD and Meire out than ever before. I was very much in the camp that was hoping for them to change their ways and run the club properly, but I think it has become perfectly clear that they will run the club exactly how they want to, and to hell with the fans or anyone else that may question them.
With that said, it's a big step to move away from dialogue completely, and if I were part of the Trust I would want to ensure that the door to any meaningful discussion was closed properly before pulling out. I would be interested to know if during this public silence, you've managed any kind of positive steps forward, or are you getting the silent treatment too? Obviously you don't have to answer that, I'm just keen to understand if at this point, it's still a worthwhile objective.
It may be worth mentioning that I became a Trust member around the time of the Woolwich meeting. I felt that we were on the same page in terms of how we thought about the regime and you seemed to be the only people willing to take them on. I still believe you are best placed to take them on, but I'm wondering if you are currently a little behind the game in regard to representing how members feel right now. I personally would like to see a fresh survey sent out to members to gauge opinion on whether they still support dialogue as the priority or whether things should be escalated.
Much appreciate your understanding, and you're right the question you are asking is best not answered - for now- in public for tactical reasons.
How strange, because someone must have commented very recently otherwise how would the Sub Standard 'understand' yesterday that RD is not prepared to sell?
Deduction, based on "no comment"?
A stock phrase which means nothing. "Understands" means a junior sub read it in the Metro or on Twitter. Same as "sources" can mean the deputy chairman or, more likely, a bloke down the pub. If it's not attributed, treat with caution. If an article does not even carry unattributed quotes, pretty much dismiss.
As a semi-retired journalist, I can assure the club that the one way to guarantee hostile coverage is to blank the press. They will smell a story, and if you refuse to play ball then there will be a lot of those opposing you who will readily speak.
Agreed. It's hard to see why they wouldn't go on the record saying that the club is not for sale, if nothing else, if that is true.
My advice to her would be to arrange lunch with an important football writer and give them an exclusive. I would suggest she used all her charm and femininity to explain her side (misunderstood, rude fans, passionate owner, all want same thing etc) and feed them the party line. One on one, she sells herself well. That way she can claim to have spoken and she will have an ally. She can also meet with a couple of the local papers (editors ideally, butter them up and make them feel important) and once that is done, speak one-on-one with another half dozen national journalists. So cut the fans out the loop altogether, get the media onside, and appeal to the decent number of CAFC supporters who have not bought into the protests.
Of course, she is too stupid and arrogant to go down this route, so she will just sit in her bunker flossing.
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet.
Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet.
Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
Have you found many booking sites that require you to call up so you can use them, though?
I also think it serves as the public face of the club when people visit the ground and since you must have ticketing staff why wouldn't you have them available to talk to fans face to face?
As a semi-retired journalist, I can assure the club that the one way to guarantee hostile coverage is to blank the press. They will smell a story, and if you refuse to play ball then there will be a lot of those opposing you who will readily speak.
Agreed. It's hard to see why they wouldn't go on the record saying that the club is not for sale, if nothing else, if that is true.
My advice to her would be to arrange lunch with an important football writer and give them an exclusive. I would suggest she used all her charm and femininity to explain her side (misunderstood, rude fans, passionate owner, all want same thing etc) and feed them the party line. One on one, she sells herself well. That way she can claim to have spoken and she will have an ally. She can also meet with a couple of the local papers (editors ideally, butter them up and make them feel important) and once that is done, speak one-on-one with another half dozen national journalists. So cut the fans out the loop altogether, get the media onside, and appeal to the decent number of CAFC supporters who have not bought into the protests.
Of course, she is too stupid and arrogant to go down this route, so she will just sit in her bunker flossing.
I think she did very much as you mention to a Sky Sports reporter; hence his defensive comments appearing in the News Shopper last week.
Quote not working on my phone.....Rik I know you've been battling for a few days on here but seriously?....
"Attempting to develop a trusting relationship sufficient to sustain an open, constructive and sometimes critical conversation is an art with an essential long term consideration."
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet. Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
But surely she knows most Charlton fans are pensioners and don't understand the interweb and such things?
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet. Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
But surely she knows most Charlton fans are pensioners and don't understand the interweb and such things?
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet. Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
But surely she knows most Charlton fans are pensioners and don't understand the interweb and such things?
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet.
Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
Have you found many booking sites that require you to call up so you can use them, though?
I also think it serves as the public face of the club when people visit the ground and since you must have ticketing staff why wouldn't you have them available to talk to fans face to face?
I have only had to call up occasionally eg. Leeds, but agree the site is not exactly seamless.
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet. Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
But surely she knows most Charlton fans are pensioners and don't understand the interweb and such things?
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet. Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
But surely she knows most Charlton fans are pensioners and don't understand the interweb and such things?
Low blow, I'm deeply wounded .
Give the ticket office NHS call centre a ring.
I like you GA at least you give me credit for being able to use the phone .
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet.
Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
Have you found many booking sites that require you to call up so you can use them, though?
I also think it serves as the public face of the club when people visit the ground and since you must have ticketing staff why wouldn't you have them available to talk to fans face to face?
I have only had to call up occasionally eg. Leeds, but agree the site is not exactly seamless.
The online ticketing system is actually pretty decent, although it looks like shit and it's slow - the ability to print tickets off and order without being on the phone waiting for ages is great. That said, I was knocking out enterprise software at my last job which looked prettier.
Leeds was a good demonstration of one of it's weaknesses though: it looked as though you couldn't order tickets online, but you could if you logged in. So the system is also aware of restricted sale tickets, and seems to have logic to verify who can buy them... unless anyone can register and bypass those checks?
I do see online ticket sales as an adjunct to traditional methods - i.e in person and by telephone. Besides that, anything with technology needs staff to be on hand to resolve any difficulties.
Comments
I doubt that she will take your advice in future :-)
Herein lies the problem. By your own words as ex Chair of CASTrust it seems pretty clear that Miere has consistently declined meetings, failed to listen and ignored ovatures from The Trust since day one. They don't care about supporters trusts. Supporters are nothing more than paying customers to them. I suspect if truth be known that Meire would be over the moon if The Trust just disappeared.
The Trust is an irritant to KM, she will say she will listen and also wants dialogue with her customers but at the end of the day she is only paying lip service to the trust.
Recent events have certainly proved that true
Anyway, back to the thread. Well done Airman. He's not always been my cup of tea in the past, but he knows what he's doing when it comes to this sort of thing, so fair play.
With that said, it's a big step to move away from dialogue completely, and if I were part of the Trust I would want to ensure that the door to any meaningful discussion was closed properly before pulling out. I would be interested to know if during this public silence, you've managed any kind of positive steps forward, or are you getting the silent treatment too? Obviously you don't have to answer that, I'm just keen to understand if at this point, it's still a worthwhile objective.
It may be worth mentioning that I became a Trust member around the time of the Woolwich meeting. I felt that we were on the same page in terms of how we thought about the regime and you seemed to be the only people willing to take them on. I still believe you are best placed to take them on, but I'm wondering if you are currently a little behind the game in regard to representing how members feel right now. I personally would like to see a fresh survey sent out to members to gauge opinion on whether they still support dialogue as the priority or whether things should be escalated.
The reality is that things have moved very quickly and it's not so straightforward nor perhaps wise for us to do the same - imagine if we went on a fantastic run like we've done the last two seasons and fan mood turned round again, for the third year running. And if we'd abandoned our efforts we'd be criticised for being hasty, short term, lacking judgement. All the things we're criticised for when we take the opposite action. Ho hum...
In answer to your specific question, yes we have continued conversations away from the public gaze but we have yet to see the club organise the strategy group which we felt was the significant commitment from our discussions and made public at the fans meeting. We weren't impressed with the Target 20k formulation - completely different from what we thought we'd gained agreement for - and the club were shown a metaphorical yellow card over that.
That they've still yet to commit in action to the main group suggests to us we're being 'Varnied'. Nonetheless, if we pull out for no good reason we might find future boards don't want to engage either. It's a challenging game of Jenga, because we need to be visible in what's going on but equally we don't want to be the cause of the final topple in terms of the opportunity for a diplomatic and lasting solution.
We have a Trust board meeting in the coming week and this will be the centre of the conversation.
I thought Airman came across very well in the Standard, if I might bring us back on topic.
However I would argue that it's a completely different set of skills required for what the Trust is leading. Attempting to develop a trusting relationship sufficient to sustain an open, constructive and sometimes critical conversation is an art with an essential long term consideration. Especially when you're starting from a position where they're hostile to individuals on the Trust board and other fans are briefing them against us (you know who you are).
We're not absent from the conversations about protests, nor indeed from the actions themselves at least as individuals, but it has been our Board's position up until now that the Trust's priority should continue to be leading on the long term diplomatic solution. That position may change, but not with the wind.
and Katrien was looked upon as the weak link who we needed to by pass.
A year on and her credit rating with CAFC fans is lower than a Dachshund 's knackers.
The Trust were looked upon as the Hawks as they were Persona non- grata with the CEO.
Now everyone else, are the Hawks and the Trust are looked upon as the Doves ?
It's a funny old game.
Of course, she is too stupid and arrogant to go down this route, so she will just sit in her bunker flossing.
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet.
Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
I also think it serves as the public face of the club when people visit the ground and since you must have ticketing staff why wouldn't you have them available to talk to fans face to face?
"Attempting to develop a trusting relationship sufficient to sustain an open, constructive and sometimes critical conversation is an art with an essential long term consideration."
THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN
ticket officeNHS call centre a ring.Leeds was a good demonstration of one of it's weaknesses though: it looked as though you couldn't order tickets online, but you could if you logged in.
I do see online ticket sales as an adjunct to traditional methods - i.e in person and by telephone. Besides that, anything with technology needs staff to be on hand to resolve any difficulties.