I wasnt going to comment again, but just to throw a couple of facts in.
Firstly I'm not paid to do Valley Gold. It costs me and I do it because I believe in the scheme, its integrity and that members - the ones who put their money in for the benefit of the Academy - should be properly represented. There are, however, two employees of the scheme and my role on the board is to make it work. That's another reason I defend it. It's also for me the last link back to the good old days.
Secondly, what Paul and I did in withholding money put us in a difficult legal position that took a fair amount of delicacy to maintain as long as we did. Notwithstanding we were extremely robust with the club in presenting members' views on the interim CEO's comments in Dublin and we backed that with action.
Thirdly we did what we could to strengthen the relationship between the money donated and its purpose. The club can go longer request big sums to drop into its p&l, but has to demonstrate its value for the Academy.
Finally the solution for those who don't want their money to go anywhere near the club is and always has been obvious. It's a bit like complaining that Netflix never has the movies you want but still pay the subs.
I expect more people will abandon the scheme, but the reality we have to deal with is that we're criticised from both angles: we received complaints we were withholding the money as well.
I really couldn't care less if people think I'm a traitor, but if youre looking for someone in bed with the club you're looking in the wrong place. We have obligations to the scheme, including legal ones.
Have a nice day
Why not give the role up then! It benefits no one but the owner.
Because presumably then the role really would be filled by a collaborator who would hand over the Valley Gold money absolutely no questions.
At least @rikofold is challenging the use, demanding more transparency and delaying donations as much as he possibly can.
What difference would it make? From what little I know and in my opinion, of Rik he is on the right side of the fence but I fundamentally disagree with him over VG.
At the end of the day, any funds raised by VG is money Roland doesn't have to find. The VG payment was always going to be paid and all the hold up did was encourage more payments from fans rather than have them cancel. I believe this was the always known that nothing more could be achieved and remain viable.
Rik is very keen to keep VG going. Under the circumstances I would prefer it wither and collapse until the glorious day that we get regime change rather than show support for Roland.
Valley Gold is a separate organisation to the club and Meire is just one of 5 people appointed to manage the scheme. It's an entirely different question and it's a logistical nightmare to get the members together for a meeting, not to say expensive - and for what? If you're in the scheme you know where the funds it raised will go. If you don't want your money to go there, don't be a member.
After it was suggested 'read between the lines' following the last VG statement I'm not sure all members did know that funds would go to the club.
I think the Academy product is the primary source of revenue for the regime? If this is true or close to true and the VG contributions dry up, it's unlikely the regime will allow the Academy to really suffer. Indeed, if they do, it would be another large publicity nail in their coffin. Furthermore, the continuation of VG allows the regime to claim continued engagement with long-term supporters and no matter how much those long-term supporters argue otherwise, outside observers would see it that way.
Even more reason to use this as the conduit with the club. Yes the academy will suffer, Previous regimes have said the same about how how important the academy is yet they never invested, not sure why in this potential situation it would be any different? People were not challenging where their money went then. Believe me the fact the academy kept going a few years ago is testament to the team running it today. They are the only ones who will suffer. You can't just switch this on and off it needs constant investment.
Sorry, a bit thick I guess but I don't understand your point about "even more reason to use this as the conduit with the club", to what end(s) are you suggesting this conduit would be used or useful?
Not sure how the "academy will suffer", is it because RD has said (and means) there is no more money so if VG don't stump up then the shopping list items won't happen?
Also things are indeed different in this current situation, the current owner demonstrably has the funds to invest if he chooses to, this makes his situation different to "previous regimes", although I'm not sure which previous regimes you were alluding to?
I agree with the sentiment that pulling out of VG won't in itself force the regime to go away, of course it won't, neither will any of the other individual "protest" actions, however I don't believe people can be half pregnant on wanting them gone, "protesting" on one hand and financially supporting an element of the club, and therefore the regime budget, on the other.
Neither do I believe that the withdrawal of VG will materially impact the longer term health of the Academy. What was true many years ago isn't necessarily true now, unless someone knows something or has evidence to the contrary?
I think the Academy product is the primary source of revenue for the regime? If this is true or close to true and the VG contributions dry up, it's unlikely the regime will allow the Academy to really suffer. Indeed, if they do, it would be another large publicity nail in their coffin. Furthermore, the continuation of VG allows the regime to claim continued engagement with long-term supporters and no matter how much those long-term supporters argue otherwise, outside observers would see it that way.
Even more reason to use this as the conduit with the club. Yes the academy will suffer, Previous regimes have said the same about how how important the academy is yet they never invested, not sure why in this potential situation it would be any different? People were not challenging where their money went then. Believe me the fact the academy kept going a few years ago is testament to the team running it today. They are the only ones who will suffer. You can't just switch this on and off it needs constant investment.
Sorry, a bit thick I guess but I don't understand your point about "even more reason to use this as the conduit with the club", to what end(s) are you suggesting this conduit would be used or useful?
Not sure how the "academy will suffer", is it because RD has said (and means) there is no more money so if VG don't stump up then the shopping list items won't happen?
Also things are indeed different in this current situation, the current owner demonstrably has the funds to invest if he chooses to, this makes his situation different to "previous regimes", although I'm not sure which previous regimes you were alluding to?
I agree with the sentiment that pulling out of VG won't in itself force the regime to go away, of course it won't, neither will any of the other individual "protest" actions, however I don't believe people can be half pregnant on wanting them gone, "protesting" on one hand and financially supporting an element of the club, and therefore the regime budget, on the other.
Neither do I believe that the withdrawal of VG will materially impact the longer term health of the Academy. What was true many years ago isn't necessarily true now, unless someone knows something or has evidence to the contrary?
The Valley gold scheme, is one of a few examples where supporters are providing over and above ticket sales etc, hard cash to support a series of good causes/ investments to the club. Whether that investment is for the academy activities or the community trust. The intention here it seems to me is (on both sides), is the common good to benefit the club. Academy success and ultimately the success of the club in General. We can debate the quick selling of players to other clubs but ultimately this is what makes the club tick provided its sustainable. At present there seems to be numerous different groups meeting the club with no clear agenda. They might not want one, but there are many that want to see change and success. Ultimately these groups do not add anything other than a voice. This is why Valley Gold seems like an area of common ground that could be used to get better interaction with the club. It has been suggested by others to have a clear wish list of items needed - or it might be commitments around category one status. Either way the people making the decision to stay, join or leave can see where their money is going and are actually clear on their own contribution. Norwich for example did this for their Academy upgrades when they were in Division 1.
I do not know if RD will invest more - I certainly do not think its heavily funded now, I agree its better, but I still think its a struggle. Do I think the withdrawal of funds will effect the academy? Absolutely. Don't get me wrong as I said before, most I'm sure would want an owner to fund everything. The point is that its not a bottom-less pit, and I do not think the owners now or the previous ones have been any different. You get what I can afford is the mentality, not just, I have money, I will keep handing cash over. Unfortunately as a division 1 club, the academy will always be bottom of the priorities even though its vital to a club, the view is always short term.
I would ask Steve Avory his view on the last point, but believe he would say the same, yes it would. The work valley gold has supported over the last three owners has been vital.
I can see both sides of in or out, however a bit of perspective here on the numbers involved.
I'm eagerly awaiting the financial results but I think roughly it will show Roly was pumping towards £1m a month in to the club last season. I suspect that has declined this year but it won't be far off I suspect despite a net income in transfers due to gate receipts and lower TV money.
So do you think he's that concerned about £50k odd maybe twice a year? That's about 2 days worth of cash.
I appreciate that it all adds up, but that's the value to him of what we're talking about. It's probably not even on his radar.
I think I get what your saying, so if its not on his radar why did he not cancel it as per VIP membership? quoting "we no longer need the money"
I think the Academy product is the primary source of revenue for the regime? If this is true or close to true and the VG contributions dry up, it's unlikely the regime will allow the Academy to really suffer. Indeed, if they do, it would be another large publicity nail in their coffin. Furthermore, the continuation of VG allows the regime to claim continued engagement with long-term supporters and no matter how much those long-term supporters argue otherwise, outside observers would see it that way.
Even more reason to use this as the conduit with the club. Yes the academy will suffer, Previous regimes have said the same about how how important the academy is yet they never invested, not sure why in this potential situation it would be any different? People were not challenging where their money went then. Believe me the fact the academy kept going a few years ago is testament to the team running it today. They are the only ones who will suffer. You can't just switch this on and off it needs constant investment.
But it will be invested in. Do you honestly think Roland will close it?
Are people really suggesting that if the Valley Gold money dried up then the Academy would suffer and close down? Under Roland's "business model" , such as it is, which seems to rely on developing and selling Academy players?
Of course it wouldn't. It would just increase his losses. The thought that people are paying directly to develop youth players is honourable, but incredibly naive.
At the moment he's getting free money, and he must be laughing his wrinkly old moobs off.
I think your statement is possibly a tad naive. All clubs rely on selling players. Yes he may have to fund more but as I've said, no other regime has ever topped up the lack of investment nor I suspect will RD. He will simply rain back what he is funding. Yes the club need and should fund the academy not supporters but unfortunately we are in division one and the short term focus is to get out of it. Yes the academy will potentially continue but without the valley gold injections there are key items that will get dropped. Fans will be the first to scream where are our youth products where is our future when the academy gets canned. We can't win whatever we chose but we can protect a symbol of the clubs (fans) ethos.
Sorry, I don't thinK it's me that's being naive at all.
But if you want to keep giving money to the club so they can spunk it on Naby Sarr's wages then that's up to you I guess.
Of course a club like ours will sell its best players at some point. The issue is that some players have been sold without us having a proper chance to see them play and the statement fromm our CEO which indicated the plan. What has been said cannot be unsaid.
Are people really suggesting that if the Valley Gold money dried up then the Academy would suffer and close down? Under Roland's "business model" , such as it is, which seems to rely on developing and selling Academy players?
Of course it wouldn't. It would just increase his losses. The thought that people are paying directly to develop youth players is honourable, but incredibly naive.
At the moment he's getting free money, and he must be laughing his wrinkly old moobs off.
I think your statement is possibly a tad naive. All clubs rely on selling players. Yes he may have to fund more but as I've said, no other regime has ever topped up the lack of investment nor I suspect will RD. He will simply rain back what he is funding. Yes the club need and should fund the academy not supporters but unfortunately we are in division one and the short term focus is to get out of it. Yes the academy will potentially continue but without the valley gold injections there are key items that will get dropped. Fans will be the first to scream where are our youth products where is our future when the academy gets canned. We can't win whatever we chose but we can protect a symbol of the clubs (fans) ethos.
Sorry, I don't thinK it's me that's being naive at all.
But if you want to keep giving money to the club so they can spunk it on Naby Sarr's wages then that's up to you I guess.
I don't think I have told you to do anything, that is absolutely your perogative, but you are naive if you think clubs don't sell their best assets. Not sure what Naby Saar has to do with developing players through the academy either. I can see the headlines now 'Shock! Player bought by a club is actually no good shocker' Unless I'm mistaken, most clubs regularly spunk money on a daily basis!
...This is why Valley Gold seems like an area of common ground that could be used to get better interaction with the club. It has been suggested by others to have a clear wish list of items needed - or it might be commitments around category one status. Either way the people making the decision to stay, join or leave can see where their money is going and are actually clear on their own contribution. Norwich for example did this for their Academy upgrades when they were in Division 1.
I do not know if RD will invest more - I certainly do not think its heavily funded now, I agree its better, but I still think its a struggle. Do I think the withdrawal of funds will effect the academy? Absolutely. Don't get me wrong as I said before, most I'm sure would want an owner to fund everything. The point is that its not a bottom-less pit, and I do not think the owners now or the previous ones have been any different. You get what I can afford is the mentality, not just, I have money, I will keep handing cash over. Unfortunately as a division 1 club, the academy will always be bottom of the priorities even though its vital to a club, the view is always short term.
I would ask Steve Avory his view on the last point, but believe he would say the same, yes it would. The work valley gold has supported over the last three owners has been vital.
If the owner wanted 'interaction' he could have had it years ago. He's declined previous offers. He refuses to meet anyone except a handful of carefully picked stooges so that the PR people have a little something to work with. We have been told in both words and deeds that it's his club and he does what he likes. He's not interested in dialogue with, or ideas from fans, no matter how benign the group that's offering.
It's admirable that you are willing to pay cash in the hope of helping the academy, but Duchatelet will fund this to the exact amount he sees fit regardless of any fans input. Of course, he's not going to turn down a fifty-grand supporters bung, who would? But that's no guarantee that he'll spend a penny more on the academy than he would have done anyway or that he'll hold on to any of its products for any longer.
I cannot imagine any other 'business' where the 'customers' do not like or trust the owner, do not like or trust the management, do not like the product offering or the customer experience and yet voluntarily give money to that business in the hope that the owner might talk and things will magically get better. Surely the only way we have of improving the situation is starving out the current owner and seeking to rebuild when he finally gets the message and goes. Bunging money at our tormentor seems the ultimate in folly to me.
...This is why Valley Gold seems like an area of common ground that could be used to get better interaction with the club. It has been suggested by others to have a clear wish list of items needed - or it might be commitments around category one status. Either way the people making the decision to stay, join or leave can see where their money is going and are actually clear on their own contribution. Norwich for example did this for their Academy upgrades when they were in Division 1.
I do not know if RD will invest more - I certainly do not think its heavily funded now, I agree its better, but I still think its a struggle. Do I think the withdrawal of funds will effect the academy? Absolutely. Don't get me wrong as I said before, most I'm sure would want an owner to fund everything. The point is that its not a bottom-less pit, and I do not think the owners now or the previous ones have been any different. You get what I can afford is the mentality, not just, I have money, I will keep handing cash over. Unfortunately as a division 1 club, the academy will always be bottom of the priorities even though its vital to a club, the view is always short term.
I would ask Steve Avory his view on the last point, but believe he would say the same, yes it would. The work valley gold has supported over the last three owners has been vital.
If the owner wanted 'interaction' he could have had it years ago. He's declined previous offers. He refuses to meet anyone except a handful of carefully picked stooges so that the PR people have a little something to work with. We have been told in both words and deeds that it's his club and he does what he likes. He's not interested in dialogue with, or ideas from fans, no matter how benign the group that's offering.
It's admirable that you are willing to pay cash in the hope of helping the academy, but Duchatelet will fund this to the exact amount he sees fit regardless of any fans input. Of course, he's not going to turn down a fifty-grand supporters bung, who would? But that's no guarantee that he'll spend a penny more on the academy than he would have done anyway or that he'll hold on to any of its products for any longer.
I cannot imagine any other 'business' where the 'customers' do not like or trust the owner, do not like or trust the management, do not like the product offering or the customer experience and yet voluntarily give money to that business in the hope that the owner might talk and things will magically get better. Surely the only way we have of improving the situation is starving out the current owner and seeking to rebuild when he finally gets the message and goes. Bunging money at our tormentor seems the ultimate in folly to me.
Your points are valid - that's why I'm saying they dialogue needs to be here, and yes I agree only if he wishes to talk. This issue at the moment is a you say too many different groups speaking on the supporters behalf but actually not saying anything. While I agree in normal business starving is the answer - this is football and different logic applies. It seems the club suffers while a very long waiting game applies and the only winner will be RD. In the meantime you will end up waiting 10 years or more to get back any investment of re building the academy. That to me is the saddest part and should not be overlooked.
I think the Academy product is the primary source of revenue for the regime? If this is true or close to true and the VG contributions dry up, it's unlikely the regime will allow the Academy to really suffer. Indeed, if they do, it would be another large publicity nail in their coffin. Furthermore, the continuation of VG allows the regime to claim continued engagement with long-term supporters and no matter how much those long-term supporters argue otherwise, outside observers would see it that way.
Even more reason to use this as the conduit with the club. Yes the academy will suffer, Previous regimes have said the same about how how important the academy is yet they never invested, not sure why in this potential situation it would be any different? People were not challenging where their money went then. Believe me the fact the academy kept going a few years ago is testament to the team running it today. They are the only ones who will suffer. You can't just switch this on and off it needs constant investment.
Sorry, a bit thick I guess but I don't understand your point about "even more reason to use this as the conduit with the club", to what end(s) are you suggesting this conduit would be used or useful?
Not sure how the "academy will suffer", is it because RD has said (and means) there is no more money so if VG don't stump up then the shopping list items won't happen?
Also things are indeed different in this current situation, the current owner demonstrably has the funds to invest if he chooses to, this makes his situation different to "previous regimes", although I'm not sure which previous regimes you were alluding to?
I agree with the sentiment that pulling out of VG won't in itself force the regime to go away, of course it won't, neither will any of the other individual "protest" actions, however I don't believe people can be half pregnant on wanting them gone, "protesting" on one hand and financially supporting an element of the club, and therefore the regime budget, on the other.
Neither do I believe that the withdrawal of VG will materially impact the longer term health of the Academy. What was true many years ago isn't necessarily true now, unless someone knows something or has evidence to the contrary?
The Valley gold scheme, is one of a few examples where supporters are providing over and above ticket sales etc, hard cash to support a series of good causes/ investments to the club. Whether that investment is for the academy activities or the community trust. The intention here it seems to me is (on both sides), is the common good to benefit the club. Academy success and ultimately the success of the club in General. We can debate the quick selling of players to other clubs but ultimately this is what makes the club tick provided its sustainable. At present there seems to be numerous different groups meeting the club with no clear agenda. They might not want one, but there are many that want to see change and success. Ultimately these groups do not add anything other than a voice. This is why Valley Gold seems like an area of common ground that could be used to get better interaction with the club. It has been suggested by others to have a clear wish list of items needed - or it might be commitments around category one status. Either way the people making the decision to stay, join or leave can see where their money is going and are actually clear on their own contribution. Norwich for example did this for their Academy upgrades when they were in Division 1.
I do not know if RD will invest more - I certainly do not think its heavily funded now, I agree its better, but I still think its a struggle. Do I think the withdrawal of funds will effect the academy? Absolutely. Don't get me wrong as I said before, most I'm sure would want an owner to fund everything. The point is that its not a bottom-less pit, and I do not think the owners now or the previous ones have been any different. You get what I can afford is the mentality, not just, I have money, I will keep handing cash over. Unfortunately as a division 1 club, the academy will always be bottom of the priorities even though its vital to a club, the view is always short term.
I would ask Steve Avory his view on the last point, but believe he would say the same, yes it would. The work valley gold has supported over the last three owners has been vital.
Sid, I wasn't suggesting any owner be a bottomless pit, far from it, however as the Academy is the biggest (?) and most reliable cash cow for the owner it's highly unlikely he wouldn't fund "vital" investments, if they truly were vital, particularly to the tune of say £50k. Common sense dictates he wouldn't risk harm to his cash cow for such a sum of money and to say he would let "vital" items go unfunded, without good reason for saying so, is short on validity.
Like you, I wish we could all be one voice for either dialogue with this regime or with the common aim of trying to expel them. Until now they haven't shown intent on meaningful dialogue but I'm interested in what you're thinking or what you may know from a couple of aspects. When you indicate VG should be the conduit for dialogue, do you see or know of an opportunity? What is it about VG that suggests to you it should be a preferred conduit?
All of our voices, whether they be VG, CAFCTrust, CARD, T20K, Supporters Groups etc., are more powerful as one. In my opinion, any group which stands itself in however splendid an isolation, does so to the long-term detriment of our club and are playing into the hands of the regime who can claim engagement and dialogue with supporters. I believe the regime are exploiting the club loyalty and good intentions of too many lovely Charlton supporters all of whom I wish I could take for a pint to find a common ground.
"Thanks for your email cancelling your Valley Gold membership. As you have been in the scheme for a few years you already know that the money raised does not go to the club but to the academy and as stated in the letter you would have received earlier this week Steve Avory from the academy requested funds. I do understand the frustration with the club at the moment so I do respect your decision and hope to see you back soon. Can I just say a big thank you for all your contributions over the years and if you ever need anything or wish to re-join at any time please don’t hesitate to contact me."
"Thanks for your email cancelling your Valley Gold membership. As you have been in the scheme for a few years you already know that the money raised does not go to the club but to the academy and as stated in the letter you would have received earlier this week Steve Avory from the academy requested funds. I do understand the frustration with the club at the moment so I do respect your decision and hope to see you back soon. Can I just say a big thank you for all your contributions over the years and if you ever need anything or wish to re-join at any time please don’t hesitate to contact me."
As it's the same Steve Avory who made me play football in my pants when I forgot my kit at Hurstmere circa 82, he can go f**k himself.
Only kidding, he was a great teacher and a top bloke.
"Thanks for your email cancelling your Valley Gold membership. As you have been in the scheme for a few years you already know that the money raised does not go to the club but to the academy and as stated in the letter you would have received earlier this week Steve Avory from the academy requested funds. I do understand the frustration with the club at the moment so I do respect your decision and hope to see you back soon. Can I just say a big thank you for all your contributions over the years and if you ever need anything or wish to re-join at any time please don’t hesitate to contact me."
That's a pretty decent response.
However, "the money raised does not go to the club but to the Academy" comment isn't quite all than it seems as that particular point is debatable. As far as I was aware the Academy isn't a separate entity to the Club, so the money DOES go to the Club but is apparently ring fenced for Academy related stuff.
And I still don't believe for a minute that this is "extra" money, rather that it just saves on RD footing the bill for stuff. But we've already done that to death.
Comments
At the end of the day, any funds raised by VG is money Roland doesn't have to find. The VG payment was always going to be paid and all the hold up did was encourage more payments from fans rather than have them cancel. I believe this was the always known that nothing more could be achieved and remain viable.
Rik is very keen to keep VG going. Under the circumstances I would prefer it wither and collapse until the glorious day that we get regime change rather than show support for Roland.
Not sure how the "academy will suffer", is it because RD has said (and means) there is no more money so if VG don't stump up then the shopping list items won't happen?
Also things are indeed different in this current situation, the current owner demonstrably has the funds to invest if he chooses to, this makes his situation different to "previous regimes", although I'm not sure which previous regimes you were alluding to?
I agree with the sentiment that pulling out of VG won't in itself force the regime to go away, of course it won't, neither will any of the other individual "protest" actions, however I don't believe people can be half pregnant on wanting them gone, "protesting" on one hand and financially supporting an element of the club, and therefore the regime budget, on the other.
Neither do I believe that the withdrawal of VG will materially impact the longer term health of the Academy. What was true many years ago isn't necessarily true now, unless someone knows something or has evidence to the contrary?
Whether that investment is for the academy activities or the community trust. The intention here it seems to me is (on both sides), is the common good to benefit the club. Academy success and ultimately the success of the club in General.
We can debate the quick selling of players to other clubs but ultimately this is what makes the club tick provided its sustainable.
At present there seems to be numerous different groups meeting the club with no clear agenda. They might not want one, but there are many that want to see change and success. Ultimately these groups do not add anything other than a voice.
This is why Valley Gold seems like an area of common ground that could be used to get better interaction with the club.
It has been suggested by others to have a clear wish list of items needed - or it might be commitments around category one status. Either way the people making the decision to stay, join or leave can see where their money is going and are actually clear on their own contribution. Norwich for example did this for their Academy upgrades when they were in Division 1.
I do not know if RD will invest more - I certainly do not think its heavily funded now, I agree its better, but I still think its a struggle. Do I think the withdrawal of funds will effect the academy? Absolutely.
Don't get me wrong as I said before, most I'm sure would want an owner to fund everything. The point is that its not a bottom-less pit, and I do not think the owners now or the previous ones have been any different. You get what I can afford is the mentality, not just, I have money, I will keep handing cash over. Unfortunately as a division 1 club, the academy will always be bottom of the priorities even though its vital to a club, the view is always short term.
I would ask Steve Avory his view on the last point, but believe he would say the same, yes it would. The work valley gold has supported over the last three owners has been vital.
But if you want to keep giving money to the club so they can spunk it on Naby Sarr's wages then that's up to you I guess.
It's admirable that you are willing to pay cash in the hope of helping the academy, but Duchatelet will fund this to the exact amount he sees fit regardless of any fans input. Of course, he's not going to turn down a fifty-grand supporters bung, who would? But that's no guarantee that he'll spend a penny more on the academy than he would have done anyway or that he'll hold on to any of its products for any longer.
I cannot imagine any other 'business' where the 'customers' do not like or trust the owner, do not like or trust the management, do not like the product offering or the customer experience and yet voluntarily give money to that business in the hope that the owner might talk and things will magically get better. Surely the only way we have of improving the situation is starving out the current owner and seeking to rebuild when he finally gets the message and goes. Bunging money at our tormentor seems the ultimate in folly to me.
Like you, I wish we could all be one voice for either dialogue with this regime or with the common aim of trying to expel them. Until now they haven't shown intent on meaningful dialogue but I'm interested in what you're thinking or what you may know from a couple of aspects. When you indicate VG should be the conduit for dialogue, do you see or know of an opportunity? What is it about VG that suggests to you it should be a preferred conduit?
All of our voices, whether they be VG, CAFCTrust, CARD, T20K, Supporters Groups etc., are more powerful as one. In my opinion, any group which stands itself in however splendid an isolation, does so to the long-term detriment of our club and are playing into the hands of the regime who can claim engagement and dialogue with supporters. I believe the regime are exploiting the club loyalty and good intentions of too many lovely Charlton supporters all of whom I wish I could take for a pint to find a common ground.
"Thanks for your email cancelling your Valley Gold membership.
As you have been in the scheme for a few years you already know that the money raised does not go to the club but to the academy and as stated in the letter you would have received earlier this week Steve Avory from the academy requested funds. I do understand the frustration with the club at the moment so I do respect your decision and hope to see you back soon.
Can I just say a big thank you for all your contributions over the years and if you ever need anything or wish to re-join at any time please don’t hesitate to contact me."
Only kidding, he was a great teacher and a top bloke.
However, "the money raised does not go to the club but to the Academy" comment isn't quite all than it seems as that particular point is debatable. As far as I was aware the Academy isn't a separate entity to the Club, so the money DOES go to the Club but is apparently ring fenced for Academy related stuff.
And I still don't believe for a minute that this is "extra" money, rather that it just saves on RD footing the bill for stuff. But we've already done that to death.