If the vote is a resounding "don't go" can the Trust confirm 100% that a meeting will not happen?
The meeting isn't short notice, but the landscape has very recently changed for various reasons and the board as a whole is expressing different views about proceeding, with healthy debate. We've found it tricky to resolve to a conclusion so a consultation with supporters seemed the most sensible way forward.
The survey is therefore to understand the views of supporters, it is not a vote. It only reaches those online as well, so we need to interpret results and decide on that basis. However, it would be hard to ignore any majority view expressed, wouldn't it.
One thing I would like to point out is that meeting does not imply collaboration. The latter demands working together, and only one option on the survey even goes close to that possibility. We are here to give a voice to the fans, and we do need to consider how best to do that in the current circumstances.
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.
Thanks for the explaination Prague. You seem a little touchy. I didn't think that I implied that you were stupid.
I do think that you are allowing yourselves to be used if you decide to go to a meeting without the wider CARD group. As a group you signed up to the statement that claimed no cooperation with the regime.
Events have moved on way beyond our concerns when CAST first requested a meeting. You must acknowledge this?
What do you hope to achieve? What will be discussed?
I think that you will undermine the whole impetus of the campaign if you hold this meeting and your organisation might not recover from the fall out if it does.
Please don't have this meeting CAST is too valuable an organisation to loose. I am sure that nobody would want that apart from KM.
The Trust also had a strong presence at the Fans Q&A meeting, and the most recently filmed Fans Forum (which I'm sure another is due now).
Personally (speaking as a CAST member), I don't honestly see what they gain from further talks with those two at this stage, which will be a wash-out extension of further false promises, PR-friendly lip service and offers to work together in future, learning from mistakes etc.
The Trust made themselves abundantly clear just a month ago with (another) strongly worded letter to Roland, setting a fortnight ultimatum to set up a meeting. Which they were 100% right and justified to be doing.
The fact that a meeting with just Katrien and not him was offered last week on a day he was actually at the Club was quite frankly an utter pee-take and (yet another) kick in the eye to the Trust.
With that in mind I would without hesitation tell them to poke it. Or at the minimum state there is nothing to be gained from talks at this stage with those two and privately and publicly reiterate again the desire to ensure a meeting with Duchatelet on his next scheduled non-matchday (naturally) visit.
If come July / August and absolutely nothing has changed, then a meeting again with Meire and Murray holds a little more value than no meeting.
Imo the Trust should be saying that as a body for those reasons, not because CARD said last week there will be no collaboration with the Club. That is the collective call of CARD, not the Trust.
Personally i think the decision of the Trust Board to fall back and put the onus to members was a wrong one at this point on this issue. A board should be strong enough to come to a collective view on something like this. I think the three options offered muddy it a bit (two yes one no) as I don't see the middle one as being viable in any way.
If that option wins, The Trust are not realistically going to turn up, sit down, say "you may be surprised by this but our members want the person who tells you what to do to sell", then stand up and walk out, which I suspect is what a lot of people voting for that option actually would want them to do. The reality is that that message may well be delivered, but the meeting would then by default revert to the first option if everyone is honest.
Whatever the outcome, these things really shouldn't be magnified, or seen / made to be dividers amongst fans. Everyone should be doing everything they can to maintain supporter unity as it has clearly helped make great strides across the board over the last six months (starting with the way the Trust co-ordinated the fans approach to the ill-feted Fans Q&A meeting). All Charlton fans are benefiting from that, which ultimately should be what we all want.
If the vote is a resounding "don't go" can the Trust confirm 100% that a meeting will not happen?
The meeting isn't short notice, but the landscape has very recently changed for various reasons and the board as a whole is expressing different views about proceeding, with healthy debate. We've found it tricky to resolve to a conclusion so a consultation with supporters seemed the most sensible way forward.
The survey is therefore to understand the views of supporters, it is not a vote. It only reaches those online as well, so we need to interpret results and decide on that basis. However, it would be hard to ignore any majority view expressed, wouldn't it.
One thing I would like to point out is that meeting does not imply collaboration. The latter demands working together, and only one option on the survey even goes close to that possibility. We are here to give a voice to the fans, and we do need to consider how best to do that in the current circumstances.
I apologise if I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs but I am puzzled by the nature of the debate here.
There is much argument and counter argument about the democratic principles of the CAST. All very valid and entirely understandable stuff but just why are we getting so animated?
The default position as of last week stands as "this regime has to go". CAST as part of the CARD programme of protests has actively supported this message.
Where have we seen or heard of any tangible evidence of any initiative which would move people from this default position?
How does being invited to a meeting represent a compelling argument for moving from the default?
There is nothing wrong in principle in holding a dialogue with any party providing there is clear evidence of "the intent to engage" but very regrettably the club executive has "previous" in
a) breaching previously agreed formats b) inviting any and every one they can think of to deflect and defray any accountability c) seizing control of the narrative and nature of debate d) bare faced lying about the investor meeting selected fans groups - namely representatives of Target 20,000 and the Fans Forum - neither of which were true.
All apart from the scandalous attacks on supporters issued by the executive in the name of the club.
The time has long gone for the meandering, meaningless utterances of the CEO or the avuncular anecdotes from a frankly pointless chairman. They have proved over 28 months they have nothing of value to say. The recent utterances from the investor made it very clear who is the decision maker in the organisation (as two people of talent exiting the organisation will testify) .....it is not the CEO and/ or Chairman.
What exactly is the intent/ aim of any meeting?
If the club cannot define the intent/ aim then there is no point in wasting everyone's time.
It is for them to out line what they wish to say.
Who are the proposed attendees?
What is the proposed agenda?
What are the targeted deliverables from such a meeting?
Only if these can be strictly agreed can there be any point to any dialogue.
It is clear the CEO and Chairman have no authority to act so unless the investor is prepared to commit to personally engaging in such dialogue what exactly does any supporter organisation hope to achieve?
I strongly urge supporter groups of all persuasions to think strongly before considering involving themselves in more smoke and mirrors.
The club has just been relegated. Now is the time for a range of positive, driving and compelling initiatives and communications laying out the roadmap for recovery. Now is the time for leadership, for strong commitment, clear decision making so everyone associated with the club knows exactly where we are all going and how we are going to get there.
If the club executive can put that on the table then maybe just maybe there is something to talk about.
Meaningless meetings "to talk just for the sake of talking" are far, far too late.
The damage has long been done and is far too serious. What's the harm? Well I suggest you ask Messrs Henderson, Jackson and Solly for their views.
This regime is not for changing - it does not know how to change - calling for a "town hall meeting" just about sums them up - they really do not know what else to do - not a frigging clue.
I apologise if I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs but I am puzzled by the nature of the debate here.
There is much argument and counter argument about the democratic principles of the CAST. All very valid and entirely understandable stuff but just why are we getting so animated?
The default position as of last week stands as "this regime has to go". CAST as part of the CARD programme of protests has actively supported this message.
Where have we seen or heard of any tangible evidence of any initiative which would move people from this default position?
How does being invited to a meeting represent a compelling argument for moving from the default?
There is nothing wrong in principle in holding a dialogue with any party providing there is clear evidence of "the intent to engage" but very regrettably the club executive has "previous" in
a) breaching previously agreed formats b) inviting any and every one they can think of to deflect and defray any accountability c) seizing control of the narrative and nature of debate d) bare faced lying about the investor meeting selected fans groups - namely representatives of Target 20,000 and the Fans Forum - neither of which were true.
All apart from the scandalous attacks on supporters issued by the executive in the name of the club.
The time has long gone for the meandering, meaningless utterances of the CEO or the avuncular anecdotes from a frankly pointless chairman. They have proved over 28 months they have nothing of value to say. The recent utterances from the investor made it very clear who is the decision maker in the organisation (as two people of talent exiting the organisation will testify) .....it is not the CEO and/ or Chairman.
What exactly is the intent/ aim of any meeting?
If the club cannot define the intent/ aim then there is no point in wasting everyone's time.
It is for them to out line what they wish to say.
Who are the proposed attendees?
What is the proposed agenda?
What are the targeted deliverables from such a meeting?
Only if these can be strictly agreed can there be any point to any dialogue.
It is clear the CEO and Chairman have no authority to act so unless the investor is prepared to commit to personally engaging in such dialogue what exactly does any supporter organisation hope to achieve.
I strongly urge supporter groups of all persuasions to think strongly before considering involving themselves in more smoke and mirrors.
The club has just been relegated. Now is the time for a range of positive, driving and compelling initiatives and communications laying out the roadmap for recovery. Now is the time for leadership, for strong commitment, clear decision making so everyone associated with the club knows exactly where we are all going and how we are going to get there.
If the club executive can put that on the table then maybe just maybe there is something to talk about.
Meaningless meetings "to talk just for the sake of talking" are far, far too late.
The damage has long been done and is far too serious. What's the harm? Well I suggest you ask Messrs Henderson, Jackson and Solly for their views.
This regime is not for changing - it does not know how to change - calling for a "town hall meeting" just about sums them up - they really do not know what else to do - not a frigging clue.
This, this and frigging this.
Steve Clarke and his band of chinless wonders....sycophants, one and all.
So what if the meeting goes ahead and they say that they will change and start listening to the fans? How much longer do we give them? What do we want them to do now that we're in league 2? Do we arrange a 2nd meeting to ascertain if they have met what ever criteria we have set in the 1st? More questions than answers and it just prolongs the agony. I say no, no, no.! They have had more than enough time and more than enough chances already. The message for them to go is already out there why should we have to tell them that again.
A meeting without a pre agreed agenda should not be considered. If there is no agreement on an agenda a meeting is pointless.
It is like when Parliament decides there is no support for the governing party and there is a vote of no confidence. Parliament doesn't have a debate why confidence has been lost, it's just a fact that means further debate is pointless.
Unfortunately fans don't have a constitution and can't remove the owner and management in whom they have lost confidence.
My advice would be for CAST to decide whether it has lost confidence in the ability of the owner to serve the long term best interests of the club. That is why it exists, to serve the long term interests of the club and decisions should live and die on this evaluation. If it decides it has lost that confidence and there is no basis of dialogue which would serve the interests of the club it is on the same page as the CARD statement.
If CAST decides the club's long term interests are best served by a meeting rather than not having a meeting it will be contradicting the CARD statement and able to be portrayed as believing protests will not help the club. The fall out from fans is irrelevant if CAST believes the long term interests of the club are best served by a meeting. A lonely place for the CAST board so we should all have sympathy if fans views are sought before taking a decision.
My proposed agenda for the meeting would be to hear admission from the owner that there is no future for the club while the current owner and his immediate management team is in place and the only solution is the sale of the club. Personally, if that isn't the agreed agenda I would refuse a meeting with no loss of face and no contradiction of members' mandate, as a meeting has not been refused.
However it is dressed up, the club's agenda will be to discuss ways of getting the protests suppressed - period. The rest will be flimflam and fodder for a media opportunity.
So what if the meeting goes ahead and they say that they will change and start listening to the fans? How much longer do we give them? What do we want them to do now that we're in league 2? Do we arrange a 2nd meeting to ascertain if they have met what ever criteria we have set in the 1st? More questions than answers and it just prolongs the agony. I say no, no, no.! They have had more than enough time and more than enough chances already. The message for them to go is already out there why should we have to tell them that again.
In my opinion, the only hope they have now is to show us they've changed and show us they've listened, but unfortunately (for them) they'll have to do that against the backdrop of the ongoing protests. If they remove all the reasons to protest, there will be no more protests. But, I do not think they are capable of doing this, because Roland's vision does not meet even the minimum expectations that the fans require, which is a competitive football team striving for success. To meet those expectations, they need proper investment and a team (both on the pitch and behind the scenes) that can deliver success.
The reality of the situation is that we will never get these things under this regime, hence why they need to sell, and go.
Sorry I don't agree. I don't believe for one moment they are prepared to change. If anyone does believe that perhaps they can give their reasons. I think recent history bares out my take on them.
The Trust need to be very clear that Katrien Meire (in particular) has not changed and neither has Murray, who appears to be only in there for the jockeying position with Duchatelet to assist any takeover. What authority has Katrien Meire with anything of any substance at the club ? Despite Duchatelet's utterances, he is not hands off and controls any important decisions.
Like Grapevine49 says it is down to Meire & Murray to be forthcoming with what they want to talk about, who is attending and to be clear about their mistakes specifically made. Positive will needs to be demonstrated. A radical change.
After reading Chicago Addick's blog about the treatment of Chris Solly by Meire, I am not sure that any of that positivity or change of direction is being demonstrated.
I apologise if I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs but I am puzzled by the nature of the debate here.
There is much argument and counter argument about the democratic principles of the CAST. All very valid and entirely understandable stuff but just why are we getting so animated?
The default position as of last week stands as "this regime has to go". CAST as part of the CARD programme of protests has actively supported this message.
Where have we seen or heard of any tangible evidence of any initiative which would move people from this default position?
How does being invited to a meeting represent a compelling argument for moving from the default?
There is nothing wrong in principle in holding a dialogue with any party providing there is clear evidence of "the intent to engage" but very regrettably the club executive has "previous" in
a) breaching previously agreed formats b) inviting any and every one they can think of to deflect and defray any accountability c) seizing control of the narrative and nature of debate d) bare faced lying about the investor meeting selected fans groups - namely representatives of Target 20,000 and the Fans Forum - neither of which were true.
All apart from the scandalous attacks on supporters issued by the executive in the name of the club.
The time has long gone for the meandering, meaningless utterances of the CEO or the avuncular anecdotes from a frankly pointless chairman. They have proved over 28 months they have nothing of value to say. The recent utterances from the investor made it very clear who is the decision maker in the organisation (as two people of talent exiting the organisation will testify) .....it is not the CEO and/ or Chairman.
What exactly is the intent/ aim of any meeting?
If the club cannot define the intent/ aim then there is no point in wasting everyone's time.
It is for them to out line what they wish to say.
Who are the proposed attendees?
What is the proposed agenda?
What are the targeted deliverables from such a meeting?
Only if these can be strictly agreed can there be any point to any dialogue.
It is clear the CEO and Chairman have no authority to act so unless the investor is prepared to commit to personally engaging in such dialogue what exactly does any supporter organisation hope to achieve.
I strongly urge supporter groups of all persuasions to think strongly before considering involving themselves in more smoke and mirrors.
The club has just been relegated. Now is the time for a range of positive, driving and compelling initiatives and communications laying out the roadmap for recovery. Now is the time for leadership, for strong commitment, clear decision making so everyone associated with the club knows exactly where we are all going and how we are going to get there.
If the club executive can put that on the table then maybe just maybe there is something to talk about.
Meaningless meetings "to talk just for the sake of talking" are far, far too late.
The damage has long been done and is far too serious. What's the harm? Well I suggest you ask Messrs Henderson, Jackson and Solly for their views.
This regime is not for changing - it does not know how to change - calling for a "town hall meeting" just about sums them up - they really do not know what else to do - not a frigging clue.
This, this and frigging this.
Steve Clarke and his band of chinless wonders....sycophants, one and all.
And who are you to know so? Lots of time and effort - all voluntary - has gone into this. Pick holes with facts, by all means. Cheap shots based on ignorance shall be seen for what they are.
As a Trust member, I feel the trust has been in the shadow of CARD and that should not have been the case. I mentioned at a start up meeting of the trust, that it needed a cause. The cause has been staring it in the face for 2 years.
I didn't get the chance to vote but I am stating now my vote would have been an unequivocal NO. Not only will a meeting give credence to KM & RM it will undermine the movement to get shot of these people.
If the Trust board thinks that it will achieve a shift of strategy that was evident the moment the owner sold our best players then I can only think that egos as big as Richard Murray's are in place or there is total naivety.
The Trust also had a strong presence at the Fans Q&A meeting, and the most recently filmed Fans Forum (which I'm sure another is due now).
Personally (speaking as a CAST member), I don't honestly see what they gain from further talks with those two at this stage, which will be a wash-out extension of further false promises, PR-friendly lip service and offers to work together in future, learning from mistakes etc.
The Trust made themselves abundantly clear just a month ago with (another) strongly worded letter to Roland, setting a fortnight ultimatum to set up a meeting. Which they were 100% right and justified to be doing.
The fact that a meeting with just Katrien and not him was offered last week on a day he was actually at the Club was quite frankly an utter pee-take and (yet another) kick in the eye to the Trust.
With that in mind I would without hesitation tell them to poke it. Or at the minimum state there is nothing to be gained from talks at this stage with those two and privately and publicly reiterate again the desire to ensure a meeting with Duchatelet on his next scheduled non-matchday (naturally) visit.
If come July / August and absolutely nothing has changed, then a meeting again with Meire and Murray holds a little more value than no meeting.
Imo the Trust should be saying that as a body for those reasons, not because CARD said last week there will be no collaboration with the Club. That is the collective call of CARD, not the Trust.
Personally i think the decision of the Trust Board to fall back and put the onus to members was a wrong one at this point on this issue. A board should be strong enough to come to a collective view on something like this. I think the three options offered muddy it a bit (two yes one no) as I don't see the middle one as being viable in any way.
If that option wins, The Trust are not realistically going to turn up, sit down, say "you may be surprised by this but our members want the person who tells you what to do to sell", then stand up and walk out, which I suspect is what a lot of people voting for that option actually would want them to do. The reality is that that message may well be delivered, but the meeting would then by default revert to the first option if everyone is honest.
Whatever the outcome, these things really shouldn't be magnified, or seen / made to be dividers amongst fans. Everyone should be doing everything they can to maintain supporter unity as it has clearly helped make great strides across the board over the last six months (starting with the way the Trust co-ordinated the fans approach to the ill-feted Fans Q&A meeting). All Charlton fans are benefiting from that, which ultimately should be what we all want.
Arse. Long post. Apologies
I think this post helps a lot. I've already voted for the "meet but go Roland" option as I believe that formally stating views is a good thing. However, I am neither privy to the communication that has taken place previously nor have I necessarily noticed everything that has been reported on CL or elsewhere.
I felt uncomfortable with the vote and now feel that the CAST committee have been elected to make a decision and should do just that as they are, or ought to be, in command of the facts.
Thanks for yet another reasoned post @AFKABartram.
Not sure if it is just a problem with me and my lack of technical expertise (not impossible) but I was unable to place a vote on the Trust Survey earlier
In my opinion the offer of this meeting is intended to have the same effect as speaking to Lennie about a DOF position. Some will see it as them willing to change, as the first steps in a change of direction and believe it, maybe even renew season tickets on the back of it when in effect it is all a ploy to divide the support and from the look of this thread it is working a treat. Stay strong, meet Roland or no one, stay united.
If there is a fans forum this week, which I had always thought was scheduled for Thursday, with the same recorded stuff as before then maybe that ought to be the only meeting, and the reporting back structure should prevail. I admit to getting a bit mixed up.
Are there supposed to be two meetings this week now? One with the Trust, and one with the fans forum that has representatives from the trust?
Has one proposed meeting wiped out the other?
I have revised my opinion somewhat.
The trust should agree a meeting with Mr Duchatelet only, and it all gets recorded, or no meeting at all.
The Fans Forum should proceed with an agenda published in advance, without every single club employee there, and for it to be filmed. All 'technical issues' should be saved for the next meeting, or submitted by concerned parties in writing, and the fans forum should focus on the exit procedure for the regime.
At the start of the fans forum it should be made clear that promises mean nothing now, and the only content should be about actions and deadlines for actions.
Nothing should be accepted if it means that those who have brought us down remain here, learning from mistakes and promises about putting things right is not the agenda, the only agenda is change.
Some views expressed here are polarising areas of our support, and it is beholden on all of us, mandated or as individuals, to work hard to maintain unity, even through compromise.
Nobody should behave like Achilles and sulk in his or her tent.
If there is a fans forum this week, which I had always thought was scheduled for Thursday, with the same recorded stuff as before then maybe that ought to be the only meeting, and the reporting back structure should prevail. I admit to getting a bit mixed up.
Are there supposed to be two meetings this week now? One with the Trust, and one with the fans forum that has representatives from the trust?
Has one proposed meeting wiped out the other?
I have revised my opinion somewhat.
The trust should agree a meeting with Mr Duchatelet only, and it all gets recorded, or no meeting at all.
The Fans Forum should proceed with an agenda published in advance, without every single club employee there, and for it to be filmed. All 'technical issues' should be saved for the next meeting, or submitted by concerned parties in writing, and the fans forum should focus on the exit procedure for the regime.
At the start of the fans forum it should be made clear that promises mean nothing now, and the only content should be about actions and deadlines for actions.
Nothing should be accepted if it means that those who have brought us down remain here, learning from mistakes and promises about putting things right is not the agenda, the only agenda is change.
Some views expressed here are polarising areas of our support, and it is beholden on all of us, mandated or as individuals, to work hard to maintain unity, even through compromise.
Nobody should behave like Achilles and sulk in his or her tent.
My sole reason for thinking 'yes' is to retain the moral high ground and narrow their scope for deviousness and mendacity.
That said the 'no' arguments are persuasive and have a lot of justification.
I've not voted (facility appears to be removed) so am happy however it pans out.
"To give the fans a voice and represent their interests in the running of the Club"
If the survey results come back with the majority voting 'no' and you press ahead with the meeting, you will be further damaging the integrity of the Trust.
The Trust has lost a lot of credibility and trust, this is the perfect opportunity to start winning people back and getting fans onside.
"To give the fans a voice and represent their interests in the running of the Club"
If the survey results come back with the majority voting 'no' and you press ahead with the meeting, you will be further damaging the integrity of the Trust.
The Trust has lost a lot of credibility and trust, this is the perfect opportunity to start winning people back and getting fans onside.
Katrien - thanks for inviting us to meet with you and RM, we would, of course, be happy to do so. Please note that meeting with you would not alter our expectation and request for a meeting with RD. We were surprised and disappointed that RD chose not to meet with us when he was in town last week. In light of the above, please advise whether your request to meet still stands and also when you expect RD will next be in London and able to meet with us? Sincerely, CAS Trust
The Trust made themselves abundantly clear just a month ago with (another) strongly worded letter to Roland, setting a fortnight ultimatum to set up a meeting. Which they were 100% right and justified to be doing.
The fact that a meeting with just Katrien and not him was offered last week on a day he was actually at the Club was quite frankly an utter pee-take and (yet another) kick in the eye to the Trust.
With that in mind I would without hesitation tell them to poke it. Or at the minimum state there is nothing to be gained from talks at this stage with those two and privately and publicly reiterate again the desire to ensure a meeting with Duchatelet on his next scheduled non-matchday (naturally) visit.
AFKA has hit the nail on the head in his post above, but the following above stood out for me..
- This isn't what The Trust requested. - The Club have had the opportunity to provide The Trust with what they requested, but they failed to do so. - What is being offered by The Club would appear to be pointless.
That said, as someone who was immensely critical of The Trust, I would like to say that regardless of the choice they make - I can see how it is a difficult one to make, and there is no ideal solution that will keep both sets of supporters happy.
(a) If CAST decide to meet, I fully expect the club to milk it for everything it's worth - like Target20K - and for it to be used as an attempt to placate the fans going in to the close season. I fully expect there to be a backlash against CAST which damages their credibility for some fans, and we will further be divided.
(b) If CAST decline to meet, the club will make use of this by saying that they've tried to open dialog with the fans but we were too stubborn to accept. There will still be a backlash from the fans - albeit smaller.
There's no ideal solution, and we all need to stick in this together - and dare I say it - accept the surveys as a good (and democratic) means of deciding the response to the invite.
For me? I'd prefer they were told - in no uncertain terms - that the request was to meet with the organ grinder and not the monkey. Holding a meeting with Roland's Pawn (Katrien) and The Spineless Wonder (Murray) is not going to provide anything of any great use, those two individuals have personally ensured that they should never be trusted again.
Comments
As for a discussion with RD, that will never happen. Ever.
The survey is therefore to understand the views of supporters, it is not a vote. It only reaches those online as well, so we need to interpret results and decide on that basis. However, it would be hard to ignore any majority view expressed, wouldn't it.
One thing I would like to point out is that meeting does not imply collaboration. The latter demands working together, and only one option on the survey even goes close to that possibility. We are here to give a voice to the fans, and we do need to consider how best to do that in the current circumstances.
I do think that you are allowing yourselves to be used if you decide to go to a meeting without the wider CARD group. As a group you signed up to the statement that claimed no cooperation with the regime.
Events have moved on way beyond our concerns when CAST first requested a meeting. You must acknowledge this?
What do you hope to achieve? What will be discussed?
I think that you will undermine the whole impetus of the campaign if you hold this meeting and your organisation might not recover from the fall out if it does.
Please don't have this meeting CAST is too valuable an organisation to loose. I am sure that nobody would want that apart from KM.
Just to make something else clear that many others seem to have not realised / forgotten.
The Trust met officially with Miere and Murray just five months ago
http://mobile.cafc.co.uk/news/article/charlton-athletic-katrien-meire-2806891.aspx
The Trust also had a strong presence at the Fans Q&A meeting, and the most recently filmed Fans Forum (which I'm sure another is due now).
Personally (speaking as a CAST member), I don't honestly see what they gain from further talks with those two at this stage, which will be a wash-out extension of further false promises, PR-friendly lip service and offers to work together in future, learning from mistakes etc.
The Trust made themselves abundantly clear just a month ago with (another) strongly worded letter to Roland, setting a fortnight ultimatum to set up a meeting. Which they were 100% right and justified to be doing.
The fact that a meeting with just Katrien and not him was offered last week on a day he was actually at the Club was quite frankly an utter pee-take and (yet another) kick in the eye to the Trust.
With that in mind I would without hesitation tell them to poke it. Or at the minimum state there is nothing to be gained from talks at this stage with those two and privately and publicly reiterate again the desire to ensure a meeting with Duchatelet on his next scheduled non-matchday (naturally) visit.
If come July / August and absolutely nothing has changed, then a meeting again with Meire and Murray holds a little more value than no meeting.
Imo the Trust should be saying that as a body for those reasons, not because CARD said last week there will be no collaboration with the Club. That is the collective call of CARD, not the Trust.
Personally i think the decision of the Trust Board to fall back and put the onus to members was a wrong one at this point on this issue. A board should be strong enough to come to a collective view on something like this. I think the three options offered muddy it a bit (two yes one no) as I don't see the middle one as being viable in any way.
If that option wins, The Trust are not realistically going to turn up, sit down, say "you may be surprised by this but our members want the person who tells you what to do to sell", then stand up and walk out, which I suspect is what a lot of people voting for that option actually would want them to do. The reality is that that message may well be delivered, but the meeting would then by default revert to the first option if everyone is honest.
Whatever the outcome, these things really shouldn't be magnified, or seen / made to be dividers amongst fans. Everyone should be doing everything they can to maintain supporter unity as it has clearly helped make great strides across the board over the last six months (starting with the way the Trust co-ordinated the fans approach to the ill-feted Fans Q&A meeting). All Charlton fans are benefiting from that, which ultimately should be what we all want.
Arse. Long post. Apologies
There is much argument and counter argument about the democratic principles of the CAST. All very valid and entirely understandable stuff but just why are we getting so animated?
The default position as of last week stands as "this regime has to go". CAST as part of the CARD programme of protests has actively supported this message.
Where have we seen or heard of any tangible evidence of any initiative which would move people from this default position?
How does being invited to a meeting represent a compelling argument for moving from the default?
There is nothing wrong in principle in holding a dialogue with any party providing there is clear evidence of "the intent to engage" but very regrettably the club executive has "previous" in
a) breaching previously agreed formats
b) inviting any and every one they can think of to deflect and defray any accountability
c) seizing control of the narrative and nature of debate
d) bare faced lying about the investor meeting selected fans groups - namely representatives of Target 20,000 and the Fans Forum - neither of which were true.
All apart from the scandalous attacks on supporters issued by the executive in the name of the club.
The time has long gone for the meandering, meaningless utterances of the CEO or the avuncular anecdotes from a frankly pointless chairman. They have proved over 28 months they have nothing of value to say. The recent utterances from the investor made it very clear who is the decision maker in the organisation (as two people of talent exiting the organisation will testify) .....it is not the CEO and/ or Chairman.
What exactly is the intent/ aim of any meeting?
If the club cannot define the intent/ aim then there is no point in wasting everyone's time.
It is for them to out line what they wish to say.
Who are the proposed attendees?
What is the proposed agenda?
What are the targeted deliverables from such a meeting?
Only if these can be strictly agreed can there be any point to any dialogue.
It is clear the CEO and Chairman have no authority to act so unless the investor is prepared to commit to personally engaging in such dialogue what exactly does any supporter organisation hope to achieve?
I strongly urge supporter groups of all persuasions to think strongly before considering involving themselves in more smoke and mirrors.
The club has just been relegated. Now is the time for a range of positive, driving and compelling initiatives and communications laying out the roadmap for recovery. Now is the time for leadership, for strong commitment, clear decision making so everyone associated with the club knows exactly where we are all going and how we are going to get there.
If the club executive can put that on the table then maybe just maybe there is something to talk about.
Meaningless meetings "to talk just for the sake of talking" are far, far too late.
The damage has long been done and is far too serious. What's the harm? Well I suggest you ask Messrs Henderson, Jackson and Solly for their views.
This regime is not for changing - it does not know how to change - calling for a "town hall meeting" just about sums them up - they really do not know what else to do - not a frigging clue.
Steve Clarke and his band of chinless wonders....sycophants, one and all.
More questions than answers and it just prolongs the agony. I say no, no, no.! They have had more than enough time and more than enough chances already. The message for them to go is already out there why should we have to tell them that again.
It is like when Parliament decides there is no support for the governing party and there is a vote of no confidence. Parliament doesn't have a debate why confidence has been lost, it's just a fact that means further debate is pointless.
Unfortunately fans don't have a constitution and can't remove the owner and management in whom they have lost confidence.
My advice would be for CAST to decide whether it has lost confidence in the ability of the owner to serve the long term best interests of the club. That is why it exists, to serve the long term interests of the club and decisions should live and die on this evaluation. If it decides it has lost that confidence and there is no basis of dialogue which would serve the interests of the club it is on the same page as the CARD statement.
If CAST decides the club's long term interests are best served by a meeting rather than not having a meeting it will be contradicting the CARD statement and able to be portrayed as believing protests will not help the club. The fall out from fans is irrelevant if CAST believes the long term interests of the club are best served by a meeting. A lonely place for the CAST board so we should all have sympathy if fans views are sought before taking a decision.
My proposed agenda for the meeting would be to hear admission from the owner that there is no future for the club while the current owner and his immediate management team is in place and the only solution is the sale of the club. Personally, if that isn't the agreed agenda I would refuse a meeting with no loss of face and no contradiction of members' mandate, as a meeting has not been refused.
However it is dressed up, the club's agenda will be to discuss ways of getting the protests suppressed - period. The rest will be flimflam and fodder for a media opportunity.
The reality of the situation is that we will never get these things under this regime, hence why they need to sell, and go.
I think recent history bares out my take on them.
To underline the point of who we are dealing with, see the rubbish treatment being given to Chris Solly, Stephen Henderson and Johnnie Jackson.
https://chicagoaddick.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/solly-being-forced-out/
The Trust need to be very clear that Katrien Meire (in particular) has not changed and neither has Murray, who appears to be only in there for the jockeying position with Duchatelet to assist any takeover. What authority has Katrien Meire with anything of any substance at the club ? Despite Duchatelet's utterances, he is not hands off and controls any important decisions.
Like Grapevine49 says it is down to Meire & Murray to be forthcoming with what they want to talk about, who is attending and to be clear about their mistakes specifically made. Positive will needs to be demonstrated. A radical change.
After reading Chicago Addick's blog about the treatment of Chris Solly by Meire, I am not sure that any of that positivity or change of direction is being demonstrated.
Therefore, there's no point in meeting with them as their opinion means nothing.
Even by their own logic, they're irrelevant.
And who are you to know so? Lots of time and effort - all voluntary - has gone into this. Pick holes with facts, by all means. Cheap shots based on ignorance shall be seen for what they are.
I didn't get the chance to vote but I am stating now my vote would have been an unequivocal NO. Not only will a meeting give credence to KM & RM it will undermine the movement to get shot of these people.
If the Trust board thinks that it will achieve a shift of strategy that was evident the moment the owner sold our best players then I can only think that egos as big as Richard Murray's are in place or there is total naivety.
A vote on this REALLY it is obvious is it not!
I felt uncomfortable with the vote and now feel that the CAST committee have been elected to make a decision and should do just that as they are, or ought to be, in command of the facts.
Thanks for yet another reasoned post @AFKABartram.
I admit to getting a bit mixed up.
Are there supposed to be two meetings this week now? One with the Trust, and one with the fans forum that has representatives from the trust?
Has one proposed meeting wiped out the other?
I have revised my opinion somewhat.
The trust should agree a meeting with Mr Duchatelet only, and it all gets recorded, or no meeting at all.
The Fans Forum should proceed with an agenda published in advance, without every single club employee there, and for it to be filmed. All 'technical issues' should be saved for the next meeting, or submitted by concerned parties in writing, and the fans forum should focus on the exit procedure for the regime.
At the start of the fans forum it should be made clear that promises mean nothing now, and the only content should be about actions and deadlines for actions.
Nothing should be accepted if it means that those who have brought us down remain here, learning from mistakes and promises about putting things right is not the agenda, the only agenda is change.
Some views expressed here are polarising areas of our support, and it is beholden on all of us, mandated or as individuals, to work hard to maintain unity, even through compromise.
Nobody should behave like Achilles and sulk in his or her tent.
The time for talking is over. Now is the time for action. We fully support CARD in all its actions in its aim to remove Roland &Co from the club......
That said the 'no' arguments are persuasive and have a lot of justification.
I've not voted (facility appears to be removed) so am happy however it pans out.
"To give the fans a voice and represent their interests in the running of the Club"
If the survey results come back with the majority voting 'no' and you press ahead with the meeting, you will be further damaging the integrity of the Trust.
The Trust has lost a lot of credibility and trust, this is the perfect opportunity to start winning people back and getting fans onside.
In light of the above, please advise whether your request to meet still stands and also when you expect RD will next be in London and able to meet with us?
Sincerely, CAS Trust
- This isn't what The Trust requested.
- The Club have had the opportunity to provide The Trust with what they requested, but they failed to do so.
- What is being offered by The Club would appear to be pointless.
That said, as someone who was immensely critical of The Trust, I would like to say that regardless of the choice they make - I can see how it is a difficult one to make, and there is no ideal solution that will keep both sets of supporters happy.
(a) If CAST decide to meet, I fully expect the club to milk it for everything it's worth - like Target20K - and for it to be used as an attempt to placate the fans going in to the close season. I fully expect there to be a backlash against CAST which damages their credibility for some fans, and we will further be divided.
(b) If CAST decline to meet, the club will make use of this by saying that they've tried to open dialog with the fans but we were too stubborn to accept. There will still be a backlash from the fans - albeit smaller.
There's no ideal solution, and we all need to stick in this together - and dare I say it - accept the surveys as a good (and democratic) means of deciding the response to the invite.
For me? I'd prefer they were told - in no uncertain terms - that the request was to meet with the organ grinder and not the monkey. Holding a meeting with Roland's Pawn (Katrien) and The Spineless Wonder (Murray) is not going to provide anything of any great use, those two individuals have personally ensured that they should never be trusted again.