Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Trust response to Club Q&A

The CAS Trust welcomes the Q&A with Richard Murray published today on the Club website and covered in the Evening Standard. However, we are disappointed that many key concerns and frustrations of supporters have not been addressed. The Trust has been committed to meaningful dialogue and would therefore welcome a response from the Club’s directors to the following questions raised by our members:

•Why are the same mistakes still being made in player recruitment and underestimating the Championship two years on?
•We are informed that the wages budget has increased by 40%, yet the league position is worse and the squad seems weaker. What has gone wrong and how will the club address this?
•Why is Karel Fraeye still interim head coach? Does the board genuinely believe that Karel Fraeye has the knowledge and experience to get Charlton out of the relegation zone? If not, what is being done to recruit a permanent manager?
•The stated strategy is to be a financially stable club, who can be competitive in the Championship, but has Premier League ambitions. In our view this is a goal, not a strategy. Katrien Meire described her proposition as being uniquely focused on being able to watch young footballers in the shop window before they’re sold to Premier League clubs and become stars. Is this consistent with Premier League ambition for Charlton?
•What does the club understand to be the reasons that fans are protesting in large and growing numbers?
•Why does the Club, contrary to the commitments of the Club’s Charter, repeatedly fail to respond to correspondence from fans politely expressing their concerns?
•What does the club intend to do to rebuild the relationship with fans?
•Why was the recent approach from Peter Varney ignored?

Read more here.
«134

Comments

  • I like it.

    Has it been emailed to the Big 3?
  • edited January 2016
    1) because Roland is tight and won't pay anywhere near the going rate for a competitive squad
    2) because Roland is tight so our scouting network is pants
    3) because Roland is tight and doesn't want to pay for a proper manager
    4) no - because Roland is tight and chasing $$$ from selling players while imcompetent club officials (because Roland is tight and won't pay a proper CEO) are trying to tell us what they think we want to hear
    5) because Roland is tight and doesn't want to pay for a proper back room structure
    6) because, bizarrely, Roland still thinks he can make money out of our club

  • 1) because Roland
    2) because Roland
    3) because Roland
    4) because Roland
    5) because Roland
    6) because Roland

    Made a few amendments for ya....
  • Good stuff. Plenty of searching questions for them, though I think we all know they will dodge them. Keeps the pressure on though, which is crucial right now.
  • Good stuff, important to respond to the ludicrously stage-managed Q&A with some really important questions that the club should answer.

  • Would have been better with a deadline, but glad to see the Trust asking questions. Hope this has gone to national, London and local media.

    Agreed, always set a reasonable deadline to respond
  • Sponsored links:


  • Good questions but as noted elsewhere, need a timescale.

    And give them to the evening standard to ask
  • Dead horses being flogged.
  • Good set of questions.

    But as said without a time scale for a response or a consequence if they don't respond they can and most likely will be ignored by the club.

    They should, if picked up by the media, go some way to countering yesterday's attempted whitewash of the problems.
  • Good set of questions.

    But as said without a time scale for a response or a consequence if they don't respond they can and most likely will be ignored by the club.

    They should, if picked up by the media, go some way to countering yesterday's attempted whitewash of the problems.

    Even with a timescale they can and likely will be ignored. As stated a deadline can be set later if it looks like the club are giving it the silent treatment.
  • Good set of questions.

    But as said without a time scale for a response or a consequence if they don't respond they can and most likely will be ignored by the club.

    They should, if picked up by the media, go some way to countering yesterday's attempted whitewash of the problems.

    Even with a timescale they can and likely will be ignored. As stated a deadline can be set later if it looks like the club are giving it the silent treatment.
    True, but then why not set one now. As much for fans as for the club.

    If there is no consequence for the club they don't act.

    We have seen that with the protests.

    Within days of the protests and subsequent media attention they responded with yesterday's press release.

    They won't respond to the questions until they feel have to.
  • This is good to wake up to! It is a start I suppose.
  • Questions are spot on and well articulated.

    What happens if they don't respond ?

    What happens if they do respond and we don't like what they say ?

    When should they respond by ?
  • very good CAS Trust but what are you going to do with it, you could:

    1: Put at time limit on a reply from CAFC, suggest 21 Jan just before Blackburn game.
    2: Just leave it on your web site
    3: Send it to the KM, RM, RD and put a time limit on the reply
    4: Make it into a press release to all local and major media outlets
    5: If no reply make a leaflet out of it and hand out at next home match
  • Sponsored links:


  • se9addick said:

    Questions are spot on and well articulated.

    What happens if they don't respond ? Report them to the Football League for breaking their own club charter

    What happens if they do respond and we don't like what they say ? All for one and one for all on the protest front

    When should they respond by ? 1700hrs next friday

  • rikofold said:

    It's good practice to have clear timescales in many ways, but I believe this is an exception. We're not issuing an ultimatum, we're not taking the option of proper engagement with supporters off the table - we're simply asking the club to explain themselves.

    They saw fit to respond when they did, we've come back in less than 24 hours to point out some key areas where their communication is remiss.

    The priority the club places on its response will tell us much more than their adherence to an arbitrary deadline. And indeed about their true intentions for what they put out there yesterday.

    Sorry Rik but in this case I think you are wrong. We have put pressure on the club with our protests. Any protest needs an impetus and while many of us are still willing to continue we need more supporters to join and this piece by the Trust could be that impetus. The next scheduled home game is 23 Jan so if a deadline for an answer of 21 Jan is included it gives people time to organise a protest around your questions for the Blackburn game without the Trust actually having to organise a protest.

    If there is no deadline the club can ignore the questions, it is time for the Trust to take off the gloves and join the fight.
  • Speedy response. Thanks to all who clearly worked late!
    Just a thought but do we need to add something about the need to replace the incompetent CEO whose position has become untenable as she has ostracised and insulted the fanbase, and who is clearly out of her depth?
  • Stop mincing about and listen to what people on here are asking for. Send the questions again with a deadline for response.
  • .

    All a waste of time I'm afraid. We have done this to death and the response is the same. More soft soap, even from Murray. It's time to up the ante. The sooner we get to a mass boycott the better. It's incumbent on us to show them what next season looks like before we sleep-walk into it. I get the support the team, not the regime stuff but that's plainly not working either. We need to support the team by getting the three stooges to wake-up. If they are going to tough this out with Roly's money, then the sooner they understand the bottom-line the better. Next season will be too late - I, for one, will be throwing the towel in. We need to do this sooner rather than later as there will be sod all interest once we are down anyway.

    I don't think we'll ever get to a mass boycott, except for the natural wastage of people just not turning up.
  • rikofold said:

    It's good practice to have clear timescales in many ways, but I believe this is an exception. We're not issuing an ultimatum, we're not taking the option of proper engagement with supporters off the table - we're simply asking the club to explain themselves.

    They saw fit to respond when they did, we've come back in less than 24 hours to point out some key areas where their communication is remiss.

    The priority the club places on its response will tell us much more than their adherence to an arbitrary deadline. And indeed about their true intentions for what they put out there yesterday.

    It looks like the Trust are continuing the policy of 'seeking dialogue' When almost everyone else is seeking action.
  • sorry Prague but I for one will now consider leaving the Trust as I see no future in it, I understand that you wish to keep any future moves secret from the club but I can only judge your actions on what I know and all I know is that you have waved a bit of paper in the air and the club will just ignore you, a bit like 1939. we need a Churchill not a Chamberlain.

    Let me remind you of one of the objectives in your constitution:
    4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running and ownership of the Club;

    with your current action you are not fulfilling that objective.

    To be fair, they have also said that everything will be assessed properly after the transfer window closes. I think this is just a response to the Q&A yesterday rather than a response to the general issues.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!