I personally object to the Crossbar Challenge, if it takes place at every league home game and is not won until the last game the prize could be in excess of £10K, not sure how this is in line with the aims of the Valley Gold.
My feelings entirely! Not sure that this makes commercial or any other sense.
"Many thanks for organising VG however enough is enough and I have cancelled my direct debit. My reasons for leaving are twofold, first I am completely disheartened by the way the current owner and his SMT are ruining our club and second that I hear that about £53,000 has recently been given to the club but none of it has been allocated to the women’s team which the club overtly supports but not in anyway financially, an example being that Gemma Shepherd, a leading goal scorer for the team, is having to publicly beg for money so as to fund a hip operation which should return her to full fitness."
her reply was
"I am in discussions at the moment with Stephen King about money for the ladies team so we will be giving them some and this will be published when the money is given. The money we have given was asked for by Steve Avory from the academy and not the club."
So VG will give money from the fans to the women's team but the club which promotes them on their web site will not.
I personally object to the Crossbar Challenge, if it takes place at every league home game and is not won until the last game the prize could be in excess of £10K, not sure how this is in line with the aims of the Valley Gold.
My feelings entirely! Not sure that this makes commercial or any other sense.
Its no different to a weekly draw surely? - The lotto has a rollover? :-) Perhaps its designed to entice more people to join?!
"Many thanks for organising VG however enough is enough and I have cancelled my direct debit. My reasons for leaving are twofold, first I am completely disheartened by the way the current owner and his SMT are ruining our club and second that I hear that about £53,000 has recently been given to the club but none of it has been allocated to the women’s team which the club overtly supports but not in anyway financially, an example being that Gemma Shepherd, a leading goal scorer for the team, is having to publicly beg for money so as to fund a hip operation which should return her to full fitness."
her reply was
"I am in discussions at the moment with Stephen King about money for the ladies team so we will be giving them some and this will be published when the money is given. The money we have given was asked for by Steve Avory from the academy and not the club."
So VG will give money from the fans to the women's team but the club which promotes them on their web site will not.
I have no knowledge on how the ladies team is structured but is this similar situation to West Ham in that the ladies team is not actually under the wing of the club? The club would not therefore fund items like you mention? Valley Gold is linked to the club assets rather than in this case a ladies team who are potentially separate.
"Many thanks for organising VG however enough is enough and I have cancelled my direct debit. My reasons for leaving are twofold, first I am completely disheartened by the way the current owner and his SMT are ruining our club and second that I hear that about £53,000 has recently been given to the club but none of it has been allocated to the women’s team which the club overtly supports but not in anyway financially, an example being that Gemma Shepherd, a leading goal scorer for the team, is having to publicly beg for money so as to fund a hip operation which should return her to full fitness."
her reply was
"I am in discussions at the moment with Stephen King about money for the ladies team so we will be giving them some and this will be published when the money is given. The money we have given was asked for by Steve Avory from the academy and not the club."
So VG will give money from the fans to the women's team but the club which promotes them on their web site will not.
I have no knowledge on how the ladies team is structured but is this similar situation to West Ham in that the ladies team is not actually under the wing of the club? The club would not therefore fund items like you mention? Valley Gold is linked to the club assets rather than in this case a ladies team who are potentially separate.
But they are happy to promote them on the OS as if they are part of the club...
"Many thanks for organising VG however enough is enough and I have cancelled my direct debit. My reasons for leaving are twofold, first I am completely disheartened by the way the current owner and his SMT are ruining our club and second that I hear that about £53,000 has recently been given to the club but none of it has been allocated to the women’s team which the club overtly supports but not in anyway financially, an example being that Gemma Shepherd, a leading goal scorer for the team, is having to publicly beg for money so as to fund a hip operation which should return her to full fitness."
her reply was
"I am in discussions at the moment with Stephen King about money for the ladies team so we will be giving them some and this will be published when the money is given. The money we have given was asked for by Steve Avory from the academy and not the club."
So VG will give money from the fans to the women's team but the club which promotes them on their web site will not.
Stephen King, is the CEO of the company that sponsor the women team shirt, along with being the women's team chairman.
"Many thanks for organising VG however enough is enough and I have cancelled my direct debit. My reasons for leaving are twofold, first I am completely disheartened by the way the current owner and his SMT are ruining our club and second that I hear that about £53,000 has recently been given to the club but none of it has been allocated to the women’s team which the club overtly supports but not in anyway financially, an example being that Gemma Shepherd, a leading goal scorer for the team, is having to publicly beg for money so as to fund a hip operation which should return her to full fitness."
her reply was
"I am in discussions at the moment with Stephen King about money for the ladies team so we will be giving them some and this will be published when the money is given. The money we have given was asked for by Steve Avory from the academy and not the club."
So VG will give money from the fans to the women's team but the club which promotes them on their web site will not.
I have no knowledge on how the ladies team is structured but is this similar situation to West Ham in that the ladies team is not actually under the wing of the club? The club would not therefore fund items like you mention? Valley Gold is linked to the club assets rather than in this case a ladies team who are potentially separate.
But they are happy to promote them on the OS as if they are part of the club...
Agreed yes they are, as most other clubs do, but if they are being run separately - that might be as far as it goes/ allowed. For example they play fixtures at different venues to the men but train at Sparrows lane at night.
Touched a nerve obviously - but that's how i feel. the abuse i get for a "failed" pitch invasion but these people cant be criticised!
what a joke!
leave it out.
You don't abuse, you get some stick for promising something and not delivering. That's not abuse
These people can be criticised FOR THEIR ACTIONS OR LACK OF SAME, not the same at all as calling them traitors etc.
I have argued long and hard with @rikofold over VG as anyone reading CL will know but he is not a traitor, neither are the few fans still working for the club, neither was @BDL before he quit.
play the ball, not the man.
Katrien is and employee - so play the ball not the man? give it a rest! you are judged on actions, and if that action is helping the regime then you are tarred with that brush.
or are we saying Tony, katrien and Thomas are not immune because they are the man not the ball?
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.
Touched a nerve obviously - but that's how i feel. the abuse i get for a "failed" pitch invasion but these people cant be criticised!
what a joke!
leave it out.
You don't abuse, you get some stick for promising something and not delivering. That's not abuse
These people can be criticised FOR THEIR ACTIONS OR LACK OF SAME, not the same at all as calling them traitors etc.
I have argued long and hard with @rikofold over VG as anyone reading CL will know but he is not a traitor, neither are the few fans still working for the club, neither was @BDL before he quit.
play the ball, not the man.
Katrien is and employee - so play the ball not the man? give it a rest! you are judged on actions, and if that action is helping the regime then you are tarred with that brush.
or are we saying Tony, katrien and Thomas are not immune because they are the man not the ball?
Glad you live in such a black and white world. For me there are a lot shades of gray where good people are forced into uncomfortable situations and try to influence from the inside while remaining on the side of angels.
Some cross the line like John Comberford who actively supports the regime and attacks protesters. Attack them by all means but don't assume that everyone who isn't as "radical" as you is a traitor. Not only are you totally wrong it just drives more and more people away from working with you.
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.
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.
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.
Please reply with: "As long as there is one fan that wants representation we will continue to do so..."
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.
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.
Are you volunteering? Cut the bloke some some slack . He's given a perfectly good explanation of his position yet people still dig him out.
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.
Fair enough, but the fact remains that, delay or not, the funds were still released.
It seems that legally there was no choice but, bearing in mind that that a number of us renewed back in June on the basis that funds would be retained, some transparency at the time of release would have been appreciated.
To be serious I understand where @rikofold is coming from as a general principle re legal obligations and constitution of the fund for the 'benefit' of the Club.
The question I would ask is how does one legally define the 'benefit' of the Club?
From a fan's viewpoint it is reasonable to want to watch every Jordan, Ade or Esri for a season or two and hope that the Club 'benefits' by gaining promotion to a higher level (s) of football.
From a regime point of view selling Gomez for £3.5m keeps Katrien and Sue in vol au vents and brings in funds thus, from their perspective, giving 'benefit' to the Club by partially mitigating losses.
I tentatively suggest, I say tentatively because I am not a lawyer and I genuinely can see the legal dilemma faced by @rikofold and Paul Nottage, that given the grey area of just what is 'benefit,' as briefly described above, they could have dug their heels in more re handing over the dosh.
I have no idea who this Matt Baker bloke is with the casting vote but perhaps it might not be a bad idea for him as the supposed 'independent' to try and get some sort of legal opinion as to what 'benefit' is in this context.
If already done my apologies but I've not read that explicitly anywhere.
The sceme exists. Money legally has to be paid to the club. So you have choice. There are supporters reps who are working as best they can within the legal constraints of the scheme to make sure the club is using the money as intended - by making sure donations are itemized and accounted for.
As such they are doing as much as is legally possible to make this work as it was originally intended
I'm not sure where having the current reps resign gets you? Nobody can stop donations indefinitely, and I'm not sure the reps could arbitrarily wind up the scheme. So the most likely result is no change, or new reps who just rubber stamp what the club asks for without holding them accountable in any way.
If you want to withdraw fro Valley Gold, do it. If you want to campaign to have others withdraw, do it. But I think it's unfair and unwise to target those who are trying to keep the club as accountable as possible while VG exists.
Touched a nerve obviously - but that's how i feel. the abuse i get for a "failed" pitch invasion but these people cant be criticised!
what a joke!
leave it out.
You don't abuse, you get some stick for promising something and not delivering. That's not abuse
These people can be criticised FOR THEIR ACTIONS OR LACK OF SAME, not the same at all as calling them traitors etc.
I have argued long and hard with @rikofold over VG as anyone reading CL will know but he is not a traitor, neither are the few fans still working for the club, neither was @BDL before he quit.
play the ball, not the man.
Katrien is and employee - so play the ball not the man? give it a rest! you are judged on actions, and if that action is helping the regime then you are tarred with that brush.
or are we saying Tony, katrien and Thomas are not immune because they are the man not the ball?
Glad you live in such a black and white world. For me there are a lot shades of gray where good people are forced into uncomfortable situations and try to influence from the inside while remaining on the side of angels.
Some cross the line like John Comberford who actively supports the regime and attacks protesters. Attack them by all means but don't assume that everyone who isn't as "radical" as you is a traitor. Not only are you totally wrong it just drives more and more people away from working with you.
The views on here are MY views nothing at all to do with being part of the Belgium20 Protest. Also i dont look for people to work with me, i help lay plans for protests and if people feel passionately about joining the planned protests then that's up to them.
I'm not starting a CULT
I alone call these people traitors - myself and @jamescafc just had a debate about this on whatsapp, both of us have connections to Belgium protests but we have our own views.
If people dont want to be part of protests in Belgium that i help plan because I'm so called "radical" then that's ridiculous, and you helping them make that decision biased on nonsense is part of the problem.
People can do what the hell they like, the Valley gold people included, but I'm entitled to my opinion and i dont feel the need to censor it to get brownie points from CL.
I will continue to target everyone who aligns with the club, valley gold are part of that and i would encourage others to distance there self's from this additional revenue for the regime. That's a personal recommendation, if the Belgium20 group want to release a statement then that's up to them nothing to do with me, likewise CARD or anyone else.
The sceme exists. Money legally has to be paid to the club. So you have choice. There are supporters reps who are working as best they can within the legal constraints of the scheme to make sure the club is using the money as intended - by making sure donations are itemized and accounted for.
As such they are doing as much as is legally possible to make this work as it was originally intended
I'm not sure where having the current reps resign gets you? Nobody can stop donations indefinitely, and I'm not sure the reps could arbitrarily wind up the scheme. So the most likely result is no change, or new reps who just rubber stamp what the club asks for without holding them accountable in any way.
If you want to withdraw fro Valley Gold, do it. If you want to campaign to have others withdraw, do it. But I think it's unfair and unwise to target those who are trying to keep the club as accountable as possible while VG exists.
And for the record, I'm not a member any more.
But does money have to be paid if it does not 'benefit' the Club however that is defined?
Why do you want Valley Gold to hold back dosh? I'm sorry but the general short sightedness (is that a word) here is not going to help Charlton's academy or the clubs future. I say again, the goal here needs to be Category one status. Until this happens you will see less and less of your Jordan, Ade or Esri as there will be no academy. Certainly not an academy that it is now. The academy haas thrived despite of the situations that it has seen over the last 7 years or so. That in itself needs to be celebrated not chucked away. The Valley gold initiative has in some respects kept the academy head above water, to me it needs a bigger voice and who better than the fans that created it in the first place. This is the link with the past and the future so it should not be thrown away. The club without an academy will not survive in todays football world, regardless who is the owner.
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.
Why do you want Valley Gold to hold back dosh? I'm sorry but the general short sightedness (is that a word) here is not going to help Charlton's academy or the clubs future. I say again, the goal here needs to be Category one status. Until this happens you will see less and less of your Jordan, Ade or Esri as there will be no academy. Certainly not an academy that it is now. The academy haas thrived despite of the situations that it has seen over the last 7 years or so. That in itself needs to be celebrated not chucked away. The Valley gold initiative has in some respects kept the academy head above water, to me it needs a bigger voice and who better than the fans that created it in the first place. This is the link with the past and the future so it should not be thrown away. The club without an academy will not survive in todays football world, regardless who is the owner.
Then ringfence the money for that purpose if legally possible.
As things stand the perception and reality is that players are produced and offloaded elsewhere and that is the cause of the discontent.
Comments
"Many thanks for organising VG however enough is enough and I have cancelled my direct debit. My reasons for leaving are twofold, first I am completely disheartened by the way the current owner and his SMT are ruining our club and second that I hear that about £53,000 has recently been given to the club but none of it has been allocated to the women’s team which the club overtly supports but not in anyway financially, an example being that Gemma Shepherd, a leading goal scorer for the team, is having to publicly beg for money so as to fund a hip operation which should return her to full fitness."
her reply was
"I am in discussions at the moment with Stephen King about money for the ladies team so we will be giving them some and this will be published when the money is given.
The money we have given was asked for by Steve Avory from the academy and not the club."
So VG will give money from the fans to the women's team but the club which promotes them on their web site will not.
Look what we have done with the protest fund - £35k we have had from fans and look what we have used it for.
Yet double that has been given BY FANS to the CLUB!
Thats the facts.
or are we saying Tony, katrien and Thomas are not immune because they are the man not the ball?
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
Some cross the line like John Comberford who actively supports the regime and attacks protesters. Attack them by all means but don't assume that everyone who isn't as "radical" as you is a traitor. Not only are you totally wrong it just drives more and more people away from working with you.
Turncoat... :-)
At least @rikofold is challenging the use, demanding more transparency and delaying donations as much as he possibly can.
It seems that legally there was no choice but, bearing in mind that that a number of us renewed back in June on the basis that funds would be retained, some transparency at the time of release would have been appreciated.
The question I would ask is how does one legally define the 'benefit' of the Club?
From a fan's viewpoint it is reasonable to want to watch every Jordan, Ade or Esri for a season or two and hope that the Club 'benefits' by gaining promotion to a higher level (s) of football.
From a regime point of view selling Gomez for £3.5m keeps Katrien and Sue in vol au vents and brings in funds thus, from their perspective, giving 'benefit' to the Club by partially mitigating losses.
I tentatively suggest, I say tentatively because I am not a lawyer and I genuinely can see the legal dilemma faced by @rikofold and Paul Nottage, that given the grey area of just what is 'benefit,' as briefly described above, they could have dug their heels in more re handing over the dosh.
I have no idea who this Matt Baker bloke is with the casting vote but perhaps it might not be a bad idea for him as the supposed 'independent' to try and get some sort of legal opinion as to what 'benefit' is in this context.
If already done my apologies but I've not read that explicitly anywhere.
The sceme exists. Money legally has to be paid to the club. So you have choice. There are supporters reps who are working as best they can within the legal constraints of the scheme to make sure the club is using the money as intended - by making sure donations are itemized and accounted for.
As such they are doing as much as is legally possible to make this work as it was originally intended
I'm not sure where having the current reps resign gets you? Nobody can stop donations indefinitely, and I'm not sure the reps could arbitrarily wind up the scheme. So the most likely result is no change, or new reps who just rubber stamp what the club asks for without holding them accountable in any way.
If you want to withdraw fro Valley Gold, do it. If you want to campaign to have others withdraw, do it. But I think it's unfair and unwise to target those who are trying to keep the club as accountable as possible while VG exists.
And for the record, I'm not a member any more.
I'm not starting a CULT
I alone call these people traitors - myself and @jamescafc just had a debate about this on whatsapp, both of us have connections to Belgium protests but we have our own views.
If people dont want to be part of protests in Belgium that i help plan because I'm so called "radical" then that's ridiculous, and you helping them make that decision biased on nonsense is part of the problem.
People can do what the hell they like, the Valley gold people included, but I'm entitled to my opinion and i dont feel the need to censor it to get brownie points from CL.
I will continue to target everyone who aligns with the club, valley gold are part of that and i would encourage others to distance there self's from this additional revenue for the regime. That's a personal recommendation, if the Belgium20 group want to release a statement then that's up to them nothing to do with me, likewise CARD or anyone else.
Is it worth finding out?
I say again, the goal here needs to be Category one status.
Until this happens you will see less and less of your Jordan, Ade or Esri as there will be no academy. Certainly not an academy that it is now.
The academy haas thrived despite of the situations that it has seen over the last 7 years or so. That in itself needs to be celebrated not chucked away.
The Valley gold initiative has in some respects kept the academy head above water, to me it needs a bigger voice and who better than the fans that created it in the first place.
This is the link with the past and the future so it should not be thrown away. The club without an academy will not survive in todays football world, regardless who is the owner.
Should CARD be recommending people withdraw?
As things stand the perception and reality is that players are produced and offloaded elsewhere and that is the cause of the discontent.
In my opinion anyway.