If there is a meeting, and it ought to be with Roland, but if there is any meeting it should be filmed and disseminated straight away, if not broadcast live.
Suggest we maybe just wait and see what the survey says. We all have strong opinions on this matter, as shown above. That in itself proves this is not a straightforward decision.
Let's not pretend that consulting members (or anyone else) was the trust board's first position this week.
So what if it wasn't? We're elected at AGM to represent members. The board felt this was a decision they couldn't make without a mandate from them, not least because there are a variety of entirely valid views and concerns in both directions on this difficult question.
They have realised that CARD can deliver on airmans promise to make the club unworkable. They are desperate and think that they can divide the fans by just inviting the trust.
If any meeting is to take place it must be with CARD meeting Roland with an agenda agreed in advance and it needs to be filmed for the rest of the fans.
Having said that I really don't see that any meeting will achieve what we all want.
Why have they asked for the meeting? My guess is to tell CAST that their actions are bad for the club and the protests need to stop. Why else would they do this?
There may have been a time for meeting Meire and sad old Murray, but that has now passed. The regime have lied about meeting other fans, have released statements insulting fans. They cannot be trusted.
This. Insisting on Duchatelet at this stage would retain the high ground. I simply don't believe that the trust will go to a meeting, deliver a ciear message, then walk out. Neither will the club allow them to do it. They will be drawn into a discussion and end up listening to same horse shit we've had from these people for two years. Neither Meire nor Murray deserves to be heard. It's divide and rule, nothing else.
Precisely, if the meeting goes ahead they will use it as a PR exercise with the media to show they are talking to fans.
What is the point of simply being told by those representing the Club that they are 'disappointed' by the relegation and that they will be 'working hard' to get back to the Championship.
The meeting can no longer be an exchange - it needs the Trust to say that they are at the meeting solely to hear Katrien Meire tender her resignation and that Duchatelet will take steps to sell the club. If those two things cannot be guaranteed at the outset of the meeting then leave - just leave.
As Chris Powell commented last night (in as many words) there is no way back that this current regime can ever recover the trust of the fans - its gone too far for that.
Here is a link to the explanation and survey by the trust (OP, might be good to put this in the first post).
The three options for the meeting are "No," "Yes and listen to what they say and report back," and "Yes and tell them to sell." I voted for Yes and tell them to sell. I fear that this leadership team will not get it until it's put bluntly to them. Also, in the meeting will be Richard Murray, a man who is allegedly part of a takeover vehicle. It should be made clear to him that he is considered as much a part of the problem as anyone else. I think not meeting would be used against CAST in the press. During the meeting CAST can declare that they no longer consider this regime to be worthy stewards of the club, and plan to boycott all future meetings. Meeting with them once does not sign them up to anything in the future. But now could be our only chance to tell them face to face that we will accept nothing short of them going.
I think this says everything, meet, tell them the only option now available is to sell and go and make sure Murray is aware that his time of influence in anything Charlton is over and that he should go with them.
My take on it - RD knows his model has failed and now knows he must change it to get us back up so he can sell and claw back some losses - or he sells now and makes a massive loss. To get back up he needs to bring in people who know what they r doing - Lawrence has been sounded out for example as i doubt anybody that has been associated with charlton's real successes during the Curbishley years would have anything to do with this clown. Would any right right thinking football man work for this joker?
For the non network plan to work he needs us to buy in and stop protesting so he can attract somebody in who may also then stand a chance of attracting staff and players. The decision for us therefore is do we allow this or do we starve him off and force him to sell up now? If it is the latter, he will sell anything he can and next year will see a team made up of mainly youth players as he slashes costs further and tries to sell. He could then conceivably keep us going, albeit dropping down the leagues. This is the rub and the risk - be bloody minded and force him out or be bloody minded and risk seeing a protracted year after year existence as a lower league club or bend a little and help facilitate his exit in a way that may or may not see us promoted. I personally believe he will slash costs right down anyway and it will be another cosmetic attempt at change.
However, my feeling is that the trust should say they will meet but rd has to be there and CARD also have to be there. He needs us to help him out of the hole he is now in so the least he can do is show up in person. If he doesn't then its just another load of cosmetic nonsense.
Here is a link to the explanation and survey by the trust (OP, might be good to put this in the first post).
The three options for the meeting are "No," "Yes and listen to what they say and report back," and "Yes and tell them to sell." I voted for Yes and tell them to sell. I fear that this leadership team will not get it until it's put bluntly to them. Also, in the meeting will be Richard Murray, a man who is allegedly part of a takeover vehicle. It should be made clear to him that he is considered as much a part of the problem as anyone else. I think not meeting would be used against CAST in the press. During the meeting CAST can declare that they no longer consider this regime to be worthy stewards of the club, and plan to boycott all future meetings. Meeting with them once does not sign them up to anything in the future. But now could be our only chance to tell them face to face that we will accept nothing short of them going.
I think this says everything, meet, tell them the only option now available is to sell and go and make sure Murray is aware that his time of influence in anything Charlton is over and that he should go with them.
That bit won't happen, which is why I cannot support the trust position.
They have realised that CARD can deliver on airmans promise to make the club unworkable. They are desperate and think that they can divide the fans by just inviting the trust.
If any meeting is to take place it must be with CARD meeting Roland with an agenda agreed in advance and it needs to be filmed for the rest of the fans.
Having said that I really don't see that any meeting will achieve what we all want.
Why have they asked for the meeting? My guess is to tell CAST that their actions are bad for the club and the protests need to stop. Why else would they do this?
Tell them to do one.
To answer your first question Telly Tubby, in fact it is the meeting we have been asking for since December. It is supposed to be about "strategy" . We have also been requesting that such a meeting ought to be with RD. Steve Clarke made that point very publicly. That has however been refused. We reluctantly decided ( a while ago) that if he refuses, our mandate still directs us to talk to KM, and RM, but always and only about what we think are the key issues. Several earlier dates were proposed and rejected, some by us. So it is not a suddenly arranged meeting by the club. That said, we do agree that there was a renewed interest from them in actually having the meeting once the CARD activity started to gather steam. We are very aware of that, please note. We are not stupid.
As it happens there were dates proposed last week, and when we discovered that RD. turned up on those dates - yet no suggestion was ever made that he could meet us, we were, shall we say, dismayed. This is what made us rethink our view of the entire meeting.
The other important point to make is that a max three of us will go to the meeting, if it happens, and at least one of them, possibly two,depending on the final lineup, is a CARD activist.
They have realised that CARD can deliver on airmans promise to make the club unworkable. They are desperate and think that they can divide the fans by just inviting the trust.
If any meeting is to take place it must be with CARD meeting Roland with an agenda agreed in advance and it needs to be filmed for the rest of the fans.
Having said that I really don't see that any meeting will achieve what we all want.
Why have they asked for the meeting? My guess is to tell CAST that their actions are bad for the club and the protests need to stop. Why else would they do this?
Tell them to do one.
To answer your first question Telly Tubby, in fact it is the meeting we have been asking for since December. It is supposed to be about "strategy" . We have also been requesting that such a meeting ought to be with RD. Steve Clarke made that point very publicly. That has however been refused. We reluctantly decided ( a while ago) that if he refuses, our mandate still directs us to talk to KM, and RM, but always and only about what we think are the key issues. Several earlier dates were proposed and rejected, some by us. So it is not a suddenly arranged meeting by the club. That said, we do agree that there was a renewed interest from them in actually having the meeting once the CARD activity started to gather steam. We are very aware of that, please note. We are not stupid.
As it happens there were dates proposed last week, and when we discovered that RD. turned up on those dates - yet no suggestion was ever made that he could meet us, we were, shall we say, dismayed. This is what made us rethink our view of the entire meeting.
The other important point to make is that a max three of us will go to the meeting, if it happens, and at least one of them, possibly two,depending on the final lineup, is a CARD activist.
But will be there as a trust board member, not representing CARD, because CARD is unlikely to endorse any meeting.
I don't expect the Trust to accept anything at all on our behalf but to discover the exit strategy for this regime. If the story is we're stuck with this regime, the message from the trust should be one of all out war. It is way too late for rapprochement with the unredeemable.
CAST board reps won't go into a meeting just to ask Duchatalet to leave. Their agenda is not just that it seems to me. Links to Murray (and Sutherland?) and belief that they can still work with Duchatalet to improve things is the issue? Not saying they are wrong but CAST's aim is no where near that of CARD and the two may not be compatible for what I want which is new owners.
CAST board reps won't go into a meeting just to ask Duchatalet to leave. Their agenda is not just that it seems to me. Links to Murray (and Sutherland?) and belief that they can still work with Duchatalet to improve things is the issue? Not saying they are wrong but CAST's aim is no where near that of CARD and the two may not be compatible for what I want which is new owners.
Suthers isn't involved with the club and he isn't pro regime. Neither is the community trust, which he does have an involvement with.
CAST board reps won't go into a meeting just to ask Duchatalet to leave. Their agenda is not just that it seems to me. Links to Murray (and Sutherland?) and belief that they can still work with Duchatalet to improve things is the issue? Not saying they are wrong but CAST's aim is no where near that of CARD and the two may not be compatible for what I want which is new owners.
Suthers isn't involved with the club and he isn't pro regime. Neither is the community trust, which he does have an involvement with.
And neither is the Supporters' Trust "pro regime" as you know full well, Rick.
CAST board reps won't go into a meeting just to ask Duchatalet to leave. Their agenda is not just that it seems to me. Links to Murray (and Sutherland?) and belief that they can still work with Duchatalet to improve things is the issue? Not saying they are wrong but CAST's aim is no where near that of CARD and the two may not be compatible for what I want which is new owners.
Suthers isn't involved with the club and he isn't pro regime. Neither is the community trust, which he does have an involvement with.
And neither is the Supporters' Trust as you know full well, Rick.
Agreed and I haven't suggested otherwise. I do think that there are some people involved who are as interested in differentiating and positioning the trust as in pursuing the main objective, however. And at least one who will never agree to a position of telling Murray he is part of the problem and needs to go.
It's OK, I'm not getting into this and I hope no-one else on Trust Board will, either. Now is quite simply not the time for public arguments and fallouts between fans as that plays straight into the regime's hands.
Seems the regime has already won with this as CARD is publially divided by the Trust's actions.
So undermining of the "no compromise " CARD statement of last week to which presumably the Trust "observers" on CARD agreed.
The lack of leadership or the unwillingness to make a decision as a trust board has lead to a ridiculous return to survey dependency that I thought had gone with the departure of previous Trust board members.
Ultimately it won't matter as KM and RM won't and can't make the only decision that matters ie to sell the club rendering a meeting with anyone but Roland pointless.
A PR success for the regime and a PR disaster for the Trust.
I'll take by "survey dependancy" you mean making sure we listen to and represent our paid members, whilst also taking into account opinion of the wider fanbase? I'll ignore the other allegations. Perhaps we should all wait and see what the survey says and show a touch more mutual respect?
It's OK, I'm not getting into this and I hope no-one else on Trust Board will, either. Now is quite simply not the time for public arguments and fallouts between fans as that plays straight into the regime's hands.
Surely meeting with them, at this point, plays right into their hands too, no?
It's OK, I'm not getting into this and I hope no-one else on Trust Board will, either. Now is quite simply not the time for public arguments and fallouts between fans as that plays straight into the regime's hands.
Surely meeting with them, at this point, plays right into their hands too, no?
It's OK, I'm not getting into this and I hope no-one else on Trust Board will, either. Now is quite simply not the time for public arguments and fallouts between fans as that plays straight into the regime's hands.
Surely meeting with them, at this point, plays right into their hands too, no?
It's OK, I'm not getting into this and I hope no-one else on Trust Board will, either. Now is quite simply not the time for public arguments and fallouts between fans as that plays straight into the regime's hands.
This. And while I'm very much pro "meet and tell them to get out," whatever is democratically chosen I will support because at the end of the day it is about us as a collective of Charlton fans. The same goes for CARD's decisions, I support CARD but disagree with their stance on refusal to meet, but respect that there are people who lead that group who make decisions and I will ultimately back those leaders even if we don't always agree.
What I guess I don't see is the harm in talking to Murray and Miere? If the club try to spin it as "see we're meeting with fans" the CAST can say "yeah but it was more lies" and it turns into a PR own goal for the regime. If they spend two hours listening to lies and nonsense of the regime, well then they've wasted their own time, and report back with "nothing new." They have explicitly put in a voting option that says "meet to tell them to sell," and were I a CAST member I would hold them to that should it win out in the democratic vote. Should the representatives come up short of their mandate then they should be held accountable.
I suspect that the regime are naive enough that they need to be told "this will only end when you leave" to understand it. We can write it on banners and on CARD Press Releases and all that but we know that people at senior levels in the setup have healthy doses of self-delusion. Maybe this will be their epiphany, but I won't hold my breath on that. What I don't see is where the hurt is. I understand the principle to those who do not believe in the legitimacy of the regime, and respect that. But perhaps someone could enlighten me on what could go so wrong in this exchange?
But you well know the trust board was split on whether to meet KM and RM and so used the old trust fall back of "let's have a survey so we don't have to make a difficult decision".
Nothing to do with seeking views of members or wider fan base.
I said much earlier on this thread that it is a difficult and important decision. Whatever the decision, there would be flak/ criticism - we know that. We decided to ask our members to ensure we properly represent them. It is not always about those who shout loudest.
But you well know the trust board was split on whether to meet KM and RM and so used the old trust fall back of "let's have a survey so we don't have to make a difficult decision".
Nothing to do with seeking views of members or wider fan base.
Why don't you and Airman stand for election to the Trust board then?
But you well know the trust board was split on whether to meet KM and RM and so used the old trust fall back of "let's have a survey so we don't have to make a difficult decision".
Nothing to do with seeking views of members or wider fan base.
Again, not knowing the exact details or personnel, I would argue from my experiences in other aspects of my life that that is the right time to consult with the people whom you represent. Remaining at loggerheads does no one any good, and while it is these peoples' jobs to represent the interest of Charlton supporters, this thread alone shows how diverse the opinions of the Charlton supporters are.
Comments
As this thread underlines.
Why do they want the meeting so quickly?
They have realised that CARD can deliver on airmans promise to make the club unworkable. They are desperate and think that they can divide the fans by just inviting the trust.
If any meeting is to take place it must be with CARD meeting Roland with an agenda agreed in advance and it needs to be filmed for the rest of the fans.
Having said that I really don't see that any meeting will achieve what we all want.
Why have they asked for the meeting? My guess is to tell CAST that their actions are bad for the club and the protests need to stop. Why else would they do this?
Tell them to do one.
It must not happen.
The meeting can no longer be an exchange - it needs the Trust to say that they are at the meeting solely to hear Katrien Meire tender her resignation and that Duchatelet will take steps to sell the club. If those two things cannot be guaranteed at the outset of the meeting then leave - just leave.
As Chris Powell commented last night (in as many words) there is no way back that this current regime can ever recover the trust of the fans - its gone too far for that.
http://www.castrust.org/2016/04/urgent-question-cas-trust/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Here is a link to the explanation and survey by the trust (OP, might be good to put this in the first post).
The three options for the meeting are "No," "Yes and listen to what they say and report back," and "Yes and tell them to sell."
I voted for Yes and tell them to sell. I fear that this leadership team will not get it until it's put bluntly to them. Also, in the meeting will be Richard Murray, a man who is allegedly part of a takeover vehicle. It should be made clear to him that he is considered as much a part of the problem as anyone else.
I think not meeting would be used against CAST in the press. During the meeting CAST can declare that they no longer consider this regime to be worthy stewards of the club, and plan to boycott all future meetings. Meeting with them once does not sign them up to anything in the future. But now could be our only chance to tell them face to face that we will accept nothing short of them going.
I think this says everything, meet, tell them the only option now available is to sell and go and make sure Murray is aware that his time of influence in anything Charlton is over and that he should go with them.
For the non network plan to work he needs us to buy in and stop protesting so he can attract somebody in who may also then stand a chance of attracting staff and players. The decision for us therefore is do we allow this or do we starve him off and force him to sell up now? If it is the latter, he will sell anything he can and next year will see a team made up of mainly youth players as he slashes costs further and tries to sell. He could then conceivably keep us going, albeit dropping down the leagues. This is the rub and the risk - be bloody minded and force him out or be bloody minded and risk seeing a protracted year after year existence as a lower league club or bend a little and help facilitate his exit in a way that may or may not see us promoted. I personally believe he will slash costs right down anyway and it will be another cosmetic attempt at change.
However, my feeling is that the trust should say they will meet but rd has to be there and CARD also have to be there. He needs us to help him out of the hole he is now in so the least he can do is show up in person. If he doesn't then its just another load of cosmetic nonsense.
As it happens there were dates proposed last week, and when we discovered that RD. turned up on those dates - yet no suggestion was ever made that he could meet us, we were, shall we say, dismayed. This is what made us rethink our view of the entire meeting.
The other important point to make is that a max three of us will go to the meeting, if it happens, and at least one of them, possibly two,depending on the final lineup, is a CARD activist.
If the story is we're stuck with this regime, the message from the trust should be one of all out war.
It is way too late for rapprochement with the unredeemable.
Links to Murray (and Sutherland?) and belief that they can still work with Duchatalet to improve things is the issue?
Not saying they are wrong but CAST's aim is no where near that of CARD and the two may not be compatible for what I want which is new owners.
So undermining of the "no compromise " CARD statement of last week to which presumably the Trust "observers" on CARD agreed.
The lack of leadership or the unwillingness to make a decision as a trust board has lead to a ridiculous return to survey dependency that I thought had gone with the departure of previous Trust board members.
Ultimately it won't matter as KM and RM won't and can't make the only decision that matters ie to sell the club rendering a meeting with anyone but Roland pointless.
A PR success for the regime and a PR disaster for the Trust.
What I guess I don't see is the harm in talking to Murray and Miere? If the club try to spin it as "see we're meeting with fans" the CAST can say "yeah but it was more lies" and it turns into a PR own goal for the regime. If they spend two hours listening to lies and nonsense of the regime, well then they've wasted their own time, and report back with "nothing new." They have explicitly put in a voting option that says "meet to tell them to sell," and were I a CAST member I would hold them to that should it win out in the democratic vote. Should the representatives come up short of their mandate then they should be held accountable.
I suspect that the regime are naive enough that they need to be told "this will only end when you leave" to understand it. We can write it on banners and on CARD Press Releases and all that but we know that people at senior levels in the setup have healthy doses of self-delusion. Maybe this will be their epiphany, but I won't hold my breath on that. What I don't see is where the hurt is. I understand the principle to those who do not believe in the legitimacy of the regime, and respect that. But perhaps someone could enlighten me on what could go so wrong in this exchange?
Nothing to do with seeking views of members or wider fan base.
Why don't you and Airman stand for election to the Trust board then?