The statement said that the fan reps wouldn't consider agreeing a major donation until later in the year. It has since been clarified (for those who wanted to listen ) that this is intended to imply later in 2016 than June.
Well either it has been "clarified" or it is "intended to imply"
Maybe if you'd stop intending and implying and just answered the questions things might have been a lot clearer.
Meanwhile more and more people are dropping out as can be seen on this thread.
I dare say an update will be issued in due course. The next meeting is in a couple of weeks. Until then, I hope this makes things a bit clearer as to what's been said before.
Rather than "dare say" and "due course" you could have said "The next meeting is on 8 June. I will update on the decision made within 48 hours of that meeting.
It really is that simple.
I was and have always been doubtful that Paul Nottage, so called fans rep, would act in the best interest of the fans. We'll see if he sticks with voting no payment or whether a few free lounge passes will persuade him to change his mind.
I'm not going to get drawn in Ben. I don't know why you do this, other than you clearly get off on unnecessary conflict; you know very well where I stand on the matter and as far as I'm aware the second half of 2016 has never included June.
I will say this though before I shut up at least until the next meeting.
I repeat, the statement was one agreed by all parties and I'm not going to lay my integrity aside by expanding beyond the boundaries of what it said, beyond clarifying the wording used. I would have liked the wording to be different but it's a committee decision.
I fully expect the committee to issue a statement in due course but the content and timing is not up to me and frankly we've already said there will be no donation in June and I doubt the club will request one. The legal implications of withholding funds from the scheme's primary object are under discussion.
The idea that we're trying to keep members by staying schtum until after the renewal date is objectionable but the simple fact is that the scheme doesn't work that way. Members generally pay £10 a month and can cancel/start at any time. June is not everyone's renewal month.
Valley Gold was never really intended to be something upon which the Academy relied. Fans wanted to continue the scheme because it cemented their contribution to the club, and the Academy was a good place to which funds could be diverted. If fans no longer want to continue, for whatever reason, they can cancel. Relatively few have dropped out to date; there is a critical mass however.
I think digs at Paul are unnecessary. Like me, his role focuses on the interests of the scheme. We are representatives of those donating their money, but we are not members ourselves (legally we cannot be). We don't always agree, but he challenges the club when needed as much as I do. We have different emphases but that's healthy, and we usually work differences through ahead of meetings and agree our standpoint.
I've nothing more to say at least until the meeting has taken place (I think it's 13th June but it's not in my diary for some reason).
.
I also think I "get" you rikofold - and that is genuinely not meant t be in the least bit patronising. BUT, given that you are "sceptical" - at best - about the regime, then why are you even involved in this?
Do you think it is actually better that someone who is sceptical and proven on filmed meetings to be prepared to stand their ground and hold Meire / Club to account to be involved, or would it be better if harangued that person walked away and was then replaced with someone who is a lot more open to 'working with the regime' (which we can see on other committees)
I think the situation is pretty crap and I've made my decision what I'm doing with my membership, but at the same time whether I'm in or out I'd much rather have people like @rikofold involved than not.
Of course, so would I - and I'm not digging him personally for it (sorry if it came across that way).
But it's shit, as you say so yourself. so there comes a point when you are either seen as challenging or complying - whether we like it or not. At the moment I think I know where our man is and I support him. But it's all wearing a bit thin now.
Still, I'm in the "firebomb the ground as long as it's not me doing it cos Ive got too much to lose" camp, so I take a step back for that reason.
The statement said that the fan reps wouldn't consider agreeing a major donation until later in the year. It has since been clarified (for those who wanted to listen ) that this is intended to imply later in 2016 than June.
Well either it has been "clarified" or it is "intended to imply"
Maybe if you'd stop intending and implying and just answered the questions things might have been a lot clearer.
Meanwhile more and more people are dropping out as can be seen on this thread.
I dare say an update will be issued in due course. The next meeting is in a couple of weeks. Until then, I hope this makes things a bit clearer as to what's been said before.
Rather than "dare say" and "due course" you could have said "The next meeting is on 8 June. I will update on the decision made within 48 hours of that meeting.
It really is that simple.
I was and have always been doubtful that Paul Nottage, so called fans rep, would act in the best interest of the fans. We'll see if he sticks with voting no payment or whether a few free lounge passes will persuade him to change his mind.
I'm not going to get drawn in Ben. I don't know why you do this, other than you clearly get off on unnecessary conflict; you know very well where I stand on the matter and as far as I'm aware the second half of 2016 has never included June.
I will say this though before I shut up at least until the next meeting.
I repeat, the statement was one agreed by all parties and I'm not going to lay my integrity aside by expanding beyond the boundaries of what it said, beyond clarifying the wording used. I would have liked the wording to be different but it's a committee decision.
I fully expect the committee to issue a statement in due course but the content and timing is not up to me and frankly we've already said there will be no donation in June and I doubt the club will request one. The legal implications of withholding funds from the scheme's primary object are under discussion.
The idea that we're trying to keep members by staying schtum until after the renewal date is objectionable but the simple fact is that the scheme doesn't work that way. Members generally pay £10 a month and can cancel/start at any time. June is not everyone's renewal month.
Valley Gold was never really intended to be something upon which the Academy relied. Fans wanted to continue the scheme because it cemented their contribution to the club, and the Academy was a good place to which funds could be diverted. If fans no longer want to continue, for whatever reason, they can cancel. Relatively few have dropped out to date; there is a critical mass however.
I think digs at Paul are unnecessary. Like me, his role focuses on the interests of the scheme. We are representatives of those donating their money, but we are not members ourselves (legally we cannot be). We don't always agree, but he challenges the club when needed as much as I do. We have different emphases but that's healthy, and we usually work differences through ahead of meetings and agree our standpoint.
I've nothing more to say at least until the meeting has taken place (I think it's 13th June but it's not in my diary for some reason).
.
I also think I "get" you rikofold - and that is genuinely not meant t be in the least bit patronising. BUT, given that you are "sceptical" - at best - about the regime, then why are you even involved in this?
Do you think it is actually better that someone who is sceptical and proven on filmed meetings to be prepared to stand their ground and hold Meire / Club to account to be involved, or would it be better if harangued that person walked away and was then replaced with someone who is a lot more open to 'working with the regime' (which we can see on other committees)
I think the situation is pretty crap and I've made my decision what I'm doing with my membership, but at the same time whether I'm in or out I'd much rather have people like @rikofold involved than not.
I agree it's good to have Rich involved and as a trust board member at least he's answerable and connected to the wider fan base unlike Nottage.
Proof of the pudding will come after 13th June.
The cognitive dissonance in other posts does make me laugh though.
You're out of order digging out fellow fans who are not on here to defend themselves imo on actions they might / might not take. Completely derails the discussion and gives it an unecessary angle.
You're out of order digging out fellow fans who are not on here to defend themselves imo on actions they might / might not take. Completely derails the discussion and gives it an unecessary angle.
As I said we'll see but he has enough history to warrant at least skepticism about his contribution.
Just a quick note to confirm that no donation will be made in June. The committee met this morning.
I expect that was quite an 'interesting' meeting!
I appreciate your efforts on this @rikofold. Your previous postings on Charlton Life actually convinced me not to cancel my Valley Gold membership. Hopefully, the scheme can now continue to survive and once the current owners have departed, prosper even more for the benefit of the club.
is there any guarantees that no money will go to the regime? as it will just be pooled until the next decision, so its a bit misleading.
It's a fair comment, but one I can't answer today. There's no intent to mislead anyone, just confirming that we did what we said we would do and not give consideration to donations until later in the year.
In the interests of openness, the legal position is being explored but it is my expectation that we will be unable to withhold funds indefinitely whilst the Academy exists to produce young footballers. Unfortunately what the club chooses to do with them subsequently isn't the concern of the scheme, and rewriting the rules to make it so would need the club's agreement. People should make their decisions recognising that Valley Gold and the lottery exist for this primary purpose. It's probably unrealistic to think that we can withhold funds until this regime departs, unless they decide to sell fairly soon.
But as I say, I simply can't answer that question today definitively. We'll let people know the situation as soon as it's resolved but it won't be overnight I'm afraid.
is there any guarantees that no money will go to the regime? as it will just be pooled until the next decision, so its a bit misleading.
It's a fair comment, but one I can't answer today. There's no intent to mislead anyone, just confirming that we did what we said we would do and not give consideration to donations until later in the year.
In the interests of openness, the legal position is being explored but it is my expectation that we will be unable to withhold funds indefinitely whilst the Academy exists to produce young footballers. Unfortunately what the club chooses to do with them subsequently isn't the concern of the scheme, and rewriting the rules to make it so would need the club's agreement. People should make their decisions recognising that Valley Gold and the lottery exist for this primary purpose. It's probably unrealistic to think that we can withhold funds until this regime departs, unless they decide to sell fairly soon.
But as I say, I simply can't answer that question today definitively. We'll let people know the situation as soon as it's resolved but it won't be overnight I'm afraid.
As a strong critic of remaining in VG whilst they are in charge, I too was very pleased to see the decision to withold but given the further wave of cancellations had the decision been to hand over more money, even Meire would see the value of banking contributions, hopefully until a time when first team results might be better and a decision to handover the loot less risky. In line with just about everything else at Charlton Athletic FC, Valley Gold will continue to suffer and be at risk all the time Duchatelet is the owner and we have a Liar as Chief Exec.
is there any guarantees that no money will go to the regime? as it will just be pooled until the next decision, so its a bit misleading.
It's a fair comment, but one I can't answer today. There's no intent to mislead anyone, just confirming that we did what we said we would do and not give consideration to donations until later in the year.
In the interests of openness, the legal position is being explored but it is my expectation that we will be unable to withhold funds indefinitely whilst the Academy exists to produce young footballers. Unfortunately what the club chooses to do with them subsequently isn't the concern of the scheme, and rewriting the rules to make it so would need the club's agreement. People should make their decisions recognising that Valley Gold and the lottery exist for this primary purpose. It's probably unrealistic to think that we can withhold funds until this regime departs, unless they decide to sell fairly soon.
But as I say, I simply can't answer that question today definitively. We'll let people know the situation as soon as it's resolved but it won't be overnight I'm afraid.
As a strong critic of remaining in VG whilst they are in charge, I too was very pleased to see the decision to withold but given the further wave of cancellations had the decision been to hand over more money, even Meire would see the value of banking contributions, hopefully until a time when first team results might be better and a decision to handover the loot less risky. In line with just about everything else at Charlton Athletic FC, Valley Gold will continue to suffer and be at risk all the time Duchatelet is the owner and we have a Liar as Chief Exec.
The law will be as big a determinant as anything. People do need to remember that Valley Gold exists to put money into the Academy. That should be their primary consideration when weighing whether to continue or not, not just because that's bound in law but because it's what the scheme is.
I've argued consistently that I feel VG is the wrong target for protests as its objective is long term and as it's the young players who benefit most from the scheme because much of the money supports things that wouldn't happen otherwise. That's my position, but I understand others have theirs.
We said we wouldn't consider donations until later in the year, and we've done what we said. I really don't want people to equate that to withholding money for ever, because hand on heart I expect that's unrealistic.
is there any guarantees that no money will go to the regime? as it will just be pooled until the next decision, so its a bit misleading.
In the interests of openness, the legal position is being explored but it is my expectation that we will be unable to withhold funds indefinitely whilst the Academy exists to produce young footballers. Unfortunately what the club chooses to do with them subsequently isn't the concern of the scheme.
As an outsider again may I ask a question? As I understand it, you may not be allowed to indefinitely withhold funds as VG was set up to fund the Academy and various laws may not permit you to do so. Yet, should the club decide to do something other than fund the Academy with the VG donation, those laws are happy with that?
is there any guarantees that no money will go to the regime? as it will just be pooled until the next decision, so its a bit misleading.
In the interests of openness, the legal position is being explored but it is my expectation that we will be unable to withhold funds indefinitely whilst the Academy exists to produce young footballers. Unfortunately what the club chooses to do with them subsequently isn't the concern of the scheme.
As an outsider again may I ask a question? As I understand it, you may not be allowed to indefinitely withhold funds as VG was set up to fund the Academy and various laws may not permit you to do so. Yet, should the club decide to do something other than fund the Academy with the VG donation, those laws are happy with that?
We currently ask them to account for the spending, and we're looking at how we can make a more direct link between need and funding.
Is there anyway of getting people to divert their current VG contributions into an alternative fund that will only revert back to VG once there is regime change. Although I am not and nver have been a VG member I would be more than happy to contribute to a VG Phoenix Fund.
Comments
But it's shit, as you say so yourself. so there comes a point when you are either seen as challenging or complying - whether we like it or not. At the moment I think I know where our man is and I support him. But it's all wearing a bit thin now.
Still, I'm in the "firebomb the ground as long as it's not me doing it cos Ive got too much to lose" camp, so I take a step back for that reason.
Proof of the pudding will come after 13th June.
The cognitive dissonance in other posts does make me laugh though.
Will one be made in July? ;-)
Just rang Sharon and renewed my membership for next year
I appreciate your efforts on this @rikofold. Your previous postings on Charlton Life actually convinced me not to cancel my Valley Gold membership. Hopefully, the scheme can now continue to survive and once the current owners have departed, prosper even more for the benefit of the club.
In the interests of openness, the legal position is being explored but it is my expectation that we will be unable to withhold funds indefinitely whilst the Academy exists to produce young footballers. Unfortunately what the club chooses to do with them subsequently isn't the concern of the scheme, and rewriting the rules to make it so would need the club's agreement. People should make their decisions recognising that Valley Gold and the lottery exist for this primary purpose. It's probably unrealistic to think that we can withhold funds until this regime departs, unless they decide to sell fairly soon.
But as I say, I simply can't answer that question today definitively. We'll let people know the situation as soon as it's resolved but it won't be overnight I'm afraid.
I've argued consistently that I feel VG is the wrong target for protests as its objective is long term and as it's the young players who benefit most from the scheme because much of the money supports things that wouldn't happen otherwise. That's my position, but I understand others have theirs.
We said we wouldn't consider donations until later in the year, and we've done what we said. I really don't want people to equate that to withholding money for ever, because hand on heart I expect that's unrealistic.
As I understand it, you may not be allowed to indefinitely withhold funds as VG was set up to fund the Academy and various laws may not permit you to do so. Yet, should the club decide to do something other than fund the Academy with the VG donation, those laws are happy with that?