She is incabable of building bridges - she has been told to shut up because the more she talks the more she incites. For me, she has organised this meeting almost certainly to tick a box and with a view to deceive rather than a wish for meaningful dialogue. She is hoping that some guy with a beard and wearing socks and sandals will ask why the onion content is down in the burgers. If she is asked about the ABC, if she is challenged over the training ground and asked to acknowledge mistakes. If she is asked why she has vetoed takeover talks etc... whether the answers are genuine or not, I would like to hear them.
I'm sure the Democrats in America are delighted everytime Trump opens his mouth. We should be too when KM opens hers!
Please for the love of God, just decline it guys. You are prolonging the fight by giving her the chance of communication and to lie about how good everything is and how beautiful the Club is, which is then relayed to the media and downplays the seriousness of the entire matter.
We can't maon about a lack of communication and then moan when a meeting is set up. But given the previous form she has shown, she is likely to put her foot in it during the evening because she is so clueless about engaging brain before mouth she won't be able to help herself. One to attend for those who enjoy watching car crashes as they happen.
I don't think anyone cares about a lack of communication anymore. We're well past that.
KM may have the title of CEO but she is nothing more than a glorified post box between RD and the fans. If you want to complain to your boss you don't book an hour long meeting to speak to his PA.
Maybe this is the way to go for all supporter groups, including East Kent Addicks. Reply and say you'll accept the meeting as long as Duchatelet is there.
If it is a EFL requirement to meet fans then this action would effectively render KM redundant as they would be forced to wheel out RD who would be mightily pissed off. What a shame that would be.
Has anyone ever attended a supporters' branch meeting where the club was challenged by the questioning? I'm not sure I have. The nature of the audience tends to be that people are grateful for the opportunity just to listen to people from the club saying whatever they want to say.
Actually I have. Richard Murray was given quite a tough time at a Bromley meeting I attended just after Wendy Perfect had left the club. From memory your name might have come up too Airman.
I've also seen KM get quite a grilling at Bromley too. She became very defensive and, in my view, looked like she was going to cry at one point.
I do agree with your assessment though Airman. Logically though we all know that if we don't behave when we are 'invited' somewhere we run the risk of not being asked back. The same applies if we behave in an unpleasant manner to guests they might decline out invitation to come again.
On the subject of EKA being told that they must decline an invitation and/or be told what they can and cannot ask if they do go I think this is unfair and unrealistic.
I also think that questions that are, in reality, rhetorical and spiteful are pointless and probably play into her hands.
If KM has only been to one Bromley meeting I was there and at no point did she look remotely like crying. If she thought that was a grilling no wonder she stopped practicing law!
Has anyone ever attended a supporters' branch meeting where the club was challenged by the questioning? I'm not sure I have. The nature of the audience tends to be that people are grateful for the opportunity just to listen to people from the club saying whatever they want to say.
Actually I have. Richard Murray was given quite a tough time at a Bromley meeting I attended just after Wendy Perfect had left the club. From memory your name might have come up too Airman.
I've also seen KM get quite a grilling at Bromley too. She became very defensive and, in my view, looked like she was going to cry at one point.
I do agree with your assessment though Airman. Logically though we all know that if we don't behave when we are 'invited' somewhere we run the risk of not being asked back. The same applies if we behave in an unpleasant manner to guests they might decline out invitation to come again.
On the subject of EKA being told that they must decline an invitation and/or be told what they can and cannot ask if they do go I think this is unfair and unrealistic.
I also think that questions that are, in reality, rhetorical and spiteful are pointless and probably play into her hands.
If KM has only been to one Bromley meeting I was there and at no point did she look remotely like crying. If she thought that was a grilling no wonder she stopped practicing law!
If she has, indeed, only been to Bromley once then your view is different to mine. You will note that I, deliberately, used the phrase 'in my view'. The fact that you didn't says more about you than it does me.
However, for the avoidance of doubt, despite what you said, in my view, I thought she looked like she was going to cry.
Maybe I'm wrong but, naturally, I don't think I am which, by definition, means that I think you are. I just wouldn't be so rude about saying it.
Please for the love of God, just decline it guys. You are prolonging the fight by giving her the chance of communication and to lie about how good everything is and how beautiful the Club is, which is then relayed to the media and downplays the seriousness of the entire matter.
We can't maon about a lack of communication and then moan when a meeting is set up. But given the previous form she has shown, she is likely to put her foot in it during the evening because she is so clueless about engaging brain before mouth she won't be able to help herself. One to attend for those who enjoy watching car crashes as they happen.
I don't think anyone cares about a lack of communication anymore. We're well past that.
You mean that you don't care? How presumptuous of you to assume that everyone shares your view - especially as there are several posts on this thread that suggest many do care.
Gosh, It's a good job that neither RD nor KM assume that they are always right otherwise one of them might have concluded that those unhappy were approximately one fiftieth of the fan base!
Please for the love of God, just decline it guys. You are prolonging the fight by giving her the chance of communication and to lie about how good everything is and how beautiful the Club is, which is then relayed to the media and downplays the seriousness of the entire matter.
We can't maon about a lack of communication and then moan when a meeting is set up. But given the previous form she has shown, she is likely to put her foot in it during the evening because she is so clueless about engaging brain before mouth she won't be able to help herself. One to attend for those who enjoy watching car crashes as they happen.
I don't think anyone cares about a lack of communication anymore. We're well past that.
You mean that you don't care? How presumptuous of you to assume that everyone shares your view - especially as there are several posts on this thread that suggest many do care.
Gosh, It's a good job that neither RD nor KM assume that they are always right otherwise one of them might have concluded that those unhappy were approximately one fiftieth of the fan base!
Kings Hill - are your lot going to ask challenging questions or not? That is what I am interested in.
I can't say. When KM came down to us last year the atmosphere was much more friendly than I expect it to be this time. However, crucially, the evening event in March last year was longer and it was in a Working Man's Club where much more beer was consumed than I expect on Saturday. Often more beer leads to more awkward questions. Something that hasn't been mentioned before in respect to the meeting time. I also wonder if there will be beer available on Saturday - to be honest if I were KM and arranging this I would have it in a room where tea and coffee are offered not alcohol, but I'm not convinced she and I think alike.
What I would say is that I believe there are members of EKA that will not hold back asking the questions that many on here would like asked. I would also point out that there has never been any indication that any form of censorship has existed at any of the EKA meetings I've attended. Including very awkward, but not rude questions to players. One such, that I remember, being Tony Watt being asked about his row with Luzon before the game last August against QPR.
In my view as long as the questions are respectful, and there is a genuine question, not just a chance to have a go at someone there is no subject (as long as it's Charlton related) that should be off limits.
I would also warn, however, that even as early as last March she was failing to answer questions in the way that Politicians do. You know what I mean, they have a stock answer that they will deliver irrespective as to the question they are asked. I don't think there is much we can do about that as you can keep asking but if the answer is never going to come in the end you reach an impasse.
I'm not sure what benefit this meeting will be but I have to confess that if it is kept to less than an hour, as I expect it will be, it is likely that the preamble and the 'nice' questions might take up so much time that the things that we really want answered might not get much of a chance to be asked.
I know this is not what many on here want to hear, but I'm just being truthful and I am not aware of anyone involved with EKA that will start off like a rabid dog, but we could all be surprised.
I also suspect that none of those in attendance will be coming onto social media to look for questions that others want asked. I understand why people want KM to be given a hard time but it is one thing to ask those questions and another to have someone ask them for you. EKA has, as far as I'm aware, no restrictions on membership. Naturally it would be unrealistic to be expect to be allowed to join now just before a meeting and be invited to attend, but I believe that anyone could have joined previously and then would have received an invite for this Saturday.
If I attend the meeting and I see that no one else is going to do any kind of write up I will, probably, do one.
I've read a whole book on lies and half truths. One interesting fact was that lying on the radio (I don't mean physically lying on a radio) is far easier than on TV. As the article points out, it is because we can see various aspects of body language on TV.
However, the book did point out that some people are better liars than others. I'll leave the good folk on this forum to decide whether our CEO is a good liar or not.
What needs to be understood is that KM and the management regard communication as a tool to promote their business. Found this from a corporate communication brochure.
The main function of the business communication is to convey your message or thoughts effectively to the recipient.
It's nothing to do with explanations that give an insight into what the "customer" actually wants to know.
So when the fans ask for communications and the club say they have communicated it means nothing unless both sides have the same agenda, but all KM wants to do is tick the communication box.
In my view her initiatives are token gestures and it should be made clear why fans are not universally prepared to engage with her. We should publicise an agenda we believe should be covered and might be close to a "truth and reconciliation" process. Except the reconciliation bit might be hard to swallow, unless KM is sacrificed.
It should be made clear to KM, and the media, that her dictating the corporate speak communication agenda is preventing the engagement of the fans. Don't forget, we overwhelmingly voted for CAST to seek meetings with the owners and were ignored.
So no problem with the meeting, but it should be acknowledged for what it is, the opportunity for KM to tick the communications box in a benign atmosphere, on her agenda and try an deflect any criticism as she takes up office with the EFL.
The truth is she cannot accede to a proper dialogue and a "truth and reconciliation" process as it would mean admission of her absolute incompetence and exclude any rational conclusion that supports her remaining as CEO.
We need to demand communication with the owner and simply humour her and treat with disdain her communication initiatives.
Has anyone ever attended a supporters' branch meeting where the club was challenged by the questioning? I'm not sure I have. The nature of the audience tends to be that people are grateful for the opportunity just to listen to people from the club saying whatever they want to say.
Actually I have. Richard Murray was given quite a tough time at a Bromley meeting I attended just after Wendy Perfect had left the club. From memory your name might have come up too Airman.
I've also seen KM get quite a grilling at Bromley too. She became very defensive and, in my view, looked like she was going to cry at one point.
I do agree with your assessment though Airman. Logically though we all know that if we don't behave when we are 'invited' somewhere we run the risk of not being asked back. The same applies if we behave in an unpleasant manner to guests they might decline out invitation to come again.
On the subject of EKA being told that they must decline an invitation and/or be told what they can and cannot ask if they do go I think this is unfair and unrealistic.
I also think that questions that are, in reality, rhetorical and spiteful are pointless and probably play into her hands.
If KM has only been to one Bromley meeting I was there and at no point did she look remotely like crying. If she thought that was a grilling no wonder she stopped practicing law!
If she has, indeed, only been to Bromley once then your view is different to mine. You will note that I, deliberately, used the phrase 'in my view'. The fact that you didn't says more about you than it does me.
However, for the avoidance of doubt, despite what you said, in my view, I thought she looked like she was going to cry.
Maybe I'm wrong but, naturally, I don't think I am which, by definition, means that I think you are. I just wouldn't be so rude about saying it.
'In my view' this is a message board and I always write 'my view' so hadn't realised I had to stipulate it is 'in my view' when writing a comment but I will remember to do so in future, given that not writing 'in my view' in my post seems to have offended you so much. It is my view that I offer you my humble apologies.
I have never considered applying to join East Kent Addicks, largely because I don't live in East Kent. I do feel that they have probably been selected as a group that might not give the CEO too much of a hard time. Rightly or wrongly! I wouldn't want the meeting to be toxic, but it would be disapointing if the questions were not sufficiently challenging and if they are and it was felt they have have not been answered, the questioner says as much. Given the short duration, it must make sense for an approach to be co-ordinated by EKA which might give you all a chance to discuss over a pint or two anyway.
Whatever people's views, there is currently an unprecedented crisis in our club and one that cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet!
I've read a whole book on lies and half truths. One interesting fact was that lying on the radio (I don't mean physically lying on a radio) is far easier than on TV. As the article points out, it is because we can see various aspects of body language on TV.
However, the book did point out that some people are better liars than others. I'll leave the good folk on this forum to decide whether our CEO is a good liar or not.
I think that those who want to go, should. Those that don't, shouldn't.
I think that they should ask any questions that they want and not be put under pressure to ask questions on behalf of others.
They have said that these are going to do these Q&A on a regular basis so those who are not invited to this one now have the opportunity to join as many groups as they like and ask their own questions in due course.
I would appreciate any feedback from these meetings and promise not to criticise or ridicule a contribution by any fan.
I've read a whole book on lies and half truths. One interesting fact was that lying on the radio (I don't mean physically lying on a radio) is far easier than on TV. As the article points out, it is because we can see various aspects of body language on TV.
However, the book did point out that some people are better liars than others. I'll leave the good folk on this forum to decide whether our CEO is a good liar or not.
We'll she's very prolific, so with all the practice she's had she should be pretty good at it. Trouble for her is, her lies are just too damned obvious.
I guess the bottom line is legal advice Peter Varney got, Meire can't have defamed your character because no-one believes her. So, she's a shit liar just like she's a shit CEO.
Comments
I'm sure the Democrats in America are delighted everytime Trump opens his mouth. We should be too when KM opens hers!
http://financeglobal.info/8-surefire-ways-to-spot-a-liar/
However, for the avoidance of doubt, despite what you said, in my view, I thought she looked like she was going to cry.
Maybe I'm wrong but, naturally, I don't think I am which, by definition, means that I think you are. I just wouldn't be so rude about saying it.
Gosh, It's a good job that neither RD nor KM assume that they are always right otherwise one of them might have concluded that those unhappy were approximately one fiftieth of the fan base!
What I would say is that I believe there are members of EKA that will not hold back asking the questions that many on here would like asked. I would also point out that there has never been any indication that any form of censorship has existed at any of the EKA meetings I've attended. Including very awkward, but not rude questions to players. One such, that I remember, being Tony Watt being asked about his row with Luzon before the game last August against QPR.
In my view as long as the questions are respectful, and there is a genuine question, not just a chance to have a go at someone there is no subject (as long as it's Charlton related) that should be off limits.
I would also warn, however, that even as early as last March she was failing to answer questions in the way that Politicians do. You know what I mean, they have a stock answer that they will deliver irrespective as to the question they are asked. I don't think there is much we can do about that as you can keep asking but if the answer is never going to come in the end you reach an impasse.
I'm not sure what benefit this meeting will be but I have to confess that if it is kept to less than an hour, as I expect it will be, it is likely that the preamble and the 'nice' questions might take up so much time that the things that we really want answered might not get much of a chance to be asked.
I know this is not what many on here want to hear, but I'm just being truthful and I am not aware of anyone involved with EKA that will start off like a rabid dog, but we could all be surprised.
I also suspect that none of those in attendance will be coming onto social media to look for questions that others want asked. I understand why people want KM to be given a hard time but it is one thing to ask those questions and another to have someone ask them for you. EKA has, as far as I'm aware, no restrictions on membership. Naturally it would be unrealistic to be expect to be allowed to join now just before a meeting and be invited to attend, but I believe that anyone could have joined previously and then would have received an invite for this Saturday.
If I attend the meeting and I see that no one else is going to do any kind of write up I will, probably, do one.
All I see is a tick box exercise from the SMT and by attending you're allowing them to tick said box.
However, the book did point out that some people are better liars than others. I'll leave the good folk on this forum to decide whether our CEO is a good liar or not.
The main function of the business communication is to convey your message or thoughts effectively to the recipient.
It's nothing to do with explanations that give an insight into what the "customer" actually wants to know.
So when the fans ask for communications and the club say they have communicated it means nothing unless both sides have the same agenda, but all KM wants to do is tick the communication box.
In my view her initiatives are token gestures and it should be made clear why fans are not universally prepared to engage with her. We should publicise an agenda we believe should be covered and might be close to a "truth and reconciliation" process. Except the reconciliation bit might be hard to swallow, unless KM is sacrificed.
It should be made clear to KM, and the media, that her dictating the corporate speak communication agenda is preventing the engagement of the fans. Don't forget, we overwhelmingly voted for CAST to seek meetings with the owners and were ignored.
So no problem with the meeting, but it should be acknowledged for what it is, the opportunity for KM to tick the communications box in a benign atmosphere, on her agenda and try an deflect any criticism as she takes up office with the EFL.
The truth is she cannot accede to a proper dialogue and a "truth and reconciliation" process as it would mean admission of her absolute incompetence and exclude any rational conclusion that supports her remaining as CEO.
We need to demand communication with the owner and simply humour her and treat with disdain her communication initiatives.
Whatever people's views, there is currently an unprecedented crisis in our club and one that cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet!
I think that they should ask any questions that they want and not be put under pressure to ask questions on behalf of others.
They have said that these are going to do these Q&A on a regular basis so those who are not invited to this one now have the opportunity to join as many groups as they like and ask their own questions in due course.
I would appreciate any feedback from these meetings and promise not to criticise or ridicule a contribution by any fan.
I guess the bottom line is legal advice Peter Varney got, Meire can't have defamed your character because no-one believes her. So, she's a shit liar just like she's a shit CEO.