I realise that he would not accept such an invitation, but if one was issued he should send a written reply declining. However I also realise that as he has no moral compass, common decency cannot be applied in his case.
Ar*eholes don't have any manners they just fart when they like.
In the latest guidelines agreed between the EFL and Supporters Direct, under Government supervision, there are the following clauses:
111 Supporter Engagement 111.1 Clubs shall hold at least two meetings/fans forums per season to which its supporters (or representatives) are to be invited in order to discuss significant issues relating to the Club. The framework for these meetings shall be documented in the Club’s customer charter, but are subject to the following minimum criteria: 111.1.1 Clubs must be represented by the Club’s majority owner, board director(s) or other senior executive(s);
This implies that most people join a Supporters Trust in the full expectation that it will seek to meet with the owner, and a reasonable expectation that it will actually happen. So no, we don't need to poll our members to do something which is line with emerging best practice backed by the UK Government.
As for your description of the possible behaviour of our membership at such a meeting, we have more faith in them than you do.
As a member of the Trust I think it rather stupid of the Trust to invite RD to the AGM. Stupid because of course he will not attend and all that the Trust will gain will be a little vacuous publicity. If the Trust wants to have communication with the club then it would have been better to invite KM as she, after all, is the CEO.
Who would voluntarily go somewhere where there us a good chance of meeting a torrent of abuse?
I think such a comment also does a bit of a dis-service to those who would have organised such a meeting if he had accepted. It also simply reinforces Roland's perception of all football fans as thugs and neanderthals...
Absolutely. If the last couple of years has proven anything it's that as a group of supporters we have among us some excellent communicators able to put their message across in a mature, non abusive way. Frankly, compared to most clubs, they have got off very lightly in terms of the levels of personal abuse levelled at them and I'm sure this "grown up" approach is reflected in the overwhelmingly positive media coverage of CARD, etc.
To suggest that CAST would allow any meeting to degenerate into a one sided slanging match, given the difficulty in getting anything out of him at all, is a nonsense imo.
But isn't CAST a signatory to CARD?
Let's be clear that CARD stands for Campaign Against Roland Duchatalet. The key word being "AGAINST". Whatever may be the agenda, if you have That as part of your slogan, he would have to be bonkers to turn up...
If he had bothered to explain his apparently bizarre strategy and implementations, we might not have been against him. As it is, we are reasonable people, always ready to listen. Failing hearing anything that makes sense, and does not appear to set our club on course for oblivion, we are against him. What other sensible position would you expect a Supporters Trust to take?
I have no intention of taking sides, but my view of the Supporters Trust is that they should follow the lead of the majority of their members.
If the majority of these are opposed to RD, then they should sign up to CARD or any LEGAL opposition the members support.
Which raises another question. Shouldn't the board of CAST not have polled their members if they WANTED RD to be invited to their AGM? Because, surely, the AGM MUST be open to all members?
And, if the majority of those members there, wanted to shout at the top of their voices "F*CK OFF!!!!" every time RD was to open his mouth, how could the Board stop that? That would just be going against what a democratic organisation was all about?
There's no need to talk about sides as I'm pretty sure we've all worked out what 'side' you are on. Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to suggest you could not take part in a civilised Q&A despite the fact that you are doing otherwise to me (a paid-up CAST member).
Who would voluntarily go somewhere where there us a good chance of meeting a torrent of abuse?
I think such a comment also does a bit of a dis-service to those who would have organised such a meeting if he had accepted. It also simply reinforces Roland's perception of all football fans as thugs and neanderthals...
I agree, though emotions run high on here at times, I think that if Roland were to go to a meeting the aforementioned "middle class twonks" (Prague) would ensure that nothing unsavory happened. And going on the mood of the protests, I genuinely don't think it would. There is far too much serious business to discuss to get distracted but skullduggery.
I realise that he would not accept such an invitation, but if one was issued he should send a written reply declining. However I also realise that as he has no moral compass, common decency cannot be applied in his case.
Good point I fully agree he should have the decency to at least send a personal message and not get KM to respond, it just going to annoy people. I don't think he knows what to do and ends up doing nothing! Also another example of poor PR!
As a member of the Trust I think it rather stupid of the Trust to invite RD to the AGM. Stupid because of course he will not attend and all that the Trust will gain will be a little vacuous publicity. If the Trust wants to have communication with the club then it would have been better to invite KM as she, after all, is the CEO.
I doubt anyone in the trust expected a positive response, but I am sure if one had been forthcoming then they would have been delighted. Of course the fans attending would have been relatively courteous, but RD would have a legitimate concern following some of the aggressive and abusive chanting. KM has not been advised to have security and not to go to games by public transport because the authorities feel she will receive too much love.
From the Trusts point of view it supports that they continue to have a dialogue with the Owner and shows that he has snubbed the legitimate body representing a proportion of the fans and does help in the PR war, although we probably don't need anymore help than they already give us in that area.
As a member of the Trust I think it rather stupid of the Trust to invite RD to the AGM. Stupid because of course he will not attend and all that the Trust will gain will be a little vacuous publicity. If the Trust wants to have communication with the club then it would have been better to invite KM as she, after all, is the CEO.
Not a phrase I enjoy using, by to be fair to Duchatalet I can't blame him for not attending and feel he was in a no-win situation. Damned if he refused, pelted with rotten fruit if he accepted. Would any of us have said yes in the same circumstances?
However, it would not have hurt to send a bland 'thanks but sorry' reply. And it does not excuse that woman for seemingly not speaking to anyone not thoroughly vetted and approved beforehand and then claiming she is listening to the fans.
In the latest guidelines agreed between the EFL and Supporters Direct, under Government supervision, there are the following clauses:
111 Supporter Engagement 111.1 Clubs shall hold at least two meetings/fans forums per season to which its supporters (or representatives) are to be invited in order to discuss significant issues relating to the Club. The framework for these meetings shall be documented in the Club’s customer charter, but are subject to the following minimum criteria: 111.1.1 Clubs must be represented by the Club’s majority owner, board director(s) or other senior executive(s);
This implies that most people join a Supporters Trust in the full expectation that it will seek to meet with the owner, and a reasonable expectation that it will actually happen. So no, we don't need to poll our members to do something which is line with emerging best practice backed by the UK Government.
As for your description of the possible behaviour of our membership at such a meeting, we have more faith in them than you do.
I didn't know that, and, you're right, you have the authority to invite the owner. However, you could still have invited KM, as a Board director.
I may have been quoting an extreme view, but I still say that the members have the right to treat anyone at their AGM with any amount of disdain that they wish, and you really have no authority to tell them to do otherwise, as they have overall authority of the Supporters Trust Board.
Who would voluntarily go somewhere where there us a good chance of meeting a torrent of abuse?
I think such a comment also does a bit of a dis-service to those who would have organised such a meeting if he had accepted. It also simply reinforces Roland's perception of all football fans as thugs and neanderthals...
Absolutely. If the last couple of years has proven anything it's that as a group of supporters we have among us some excellent communicators able to put their message across in a mature, non abusive way. Frankly, compared to most clubs, they have got off very lightly in terms of the levels of personal abuse levelled at them and I'm sure this "grown up" approach is reflected in the overwhelmingly positive media coverage of CARD, etc.
To suggest that CAST would allow any meeting to degenerate into a one sided slanging match, given the difficulty in getting anything out of him at all, is a nonsense imo.
But isn't CAST a signatory to CARD?
Let's be clear that CARD stands for Campaign Against Roland Duchatalet. The key word being "AGAINST". Whatever may be the agenda, if you have That as part of your slogan, he would have to be bonkers to turn up...
If he had bothered to explain his apparently bizarre strategy and implementations, we might not have been against him. As it is, we are reasonable people, always ready to listen. Failing hearing anything that makes sense, and does not appear to set our club on course for oblivion, we are against him. What other sensible position would you expect a Supporters Trust to take?
I have no intention of taking sides, but my view of the Supporters Trust is that they should follow the lead of the majority of their members.
If the majority of these are opposed to RD, then they should sign up to CARD or any LEGAL opposition the members support.
Which raises another question. Shouldn't the board of CAST not have polled their members if they WANTED RD to be invited to their AGM? Because, surely, the AGM MUST be open to all members?
And, if the majority of those members there, wanted to shout at the top of their voices "F*CK OFF!!!!" every time RD was to open his mouth, how could the Board stop that? That would just be going against what a democratic organisation was all about?
There's no need to talk about sides as I'm pretty sure we've all worked out what 'side' you are on. Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to suggest you could not take part in a civilised Q&A despite the fact that you are doing otherwise to me (a paid-up CAST member).
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
Perhaps if every fan that wanted Duchatelet to explain himself and his strategy were to write him a letter c/o the football club it might show him that a lot of people would welcome him speaking directly with the fans.
This should equate to a good five - six thousand letters. Very bad publicity and news worthy if he should completely ignore.
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
Who would voluntarily go somewhere where there us a good chance of meeting a torrent of abuse?
I think such a comment also does a bit of a dis-service to those who would have organised such a meeting if he had accepted. It also simply reinforces Roland's perception of all football fans as thugs and neanderthals...
Absolutely. If the last couple of years has proven anything it's that as a group of supporters we have among us some excellent communicators able to put their message across in a mature, non abusive way. Frankly, compared to most clubs, they have got off very lightly in terms of the levels of personal abuse levelled at them and I'm sure this "grown up" approach is reflected in the overwhelmingly positive media coverage of CARD, etc.
To suggest that CAST would allow any meeting to degenerate into a one sided slanging match, given the difficulty in getting anything out of him at all, is a nonsense imo.
But isn't CAST a signatory to CARD?
Let's be clear that CARD stands for Campaign Against Roland Duchatalet. The key word being "AGAINST". Whatever may be the agenda, if you have That as part of your slogan, he would have to be bonkers to turn up...
If he had bothered to explain his apparently bizarre strategy and implementations, we might not have been against him. As it is, we are reasonable people, always ready to listen. Failing hearing anything that makes sense, and does not appear to set our club on course for oblivion, we are against him. What other sensible position would you expect a Supporters Trust to take?
I have no intention of taking sides, but my view of the Supporters Trust is that they should follow the lead of the majority of their members.
If the majority of these are opposed to RD, then they should sign up to CARD or any LEGAL opposition the members support.
Which raises another question. Shouldn't the board of CAST not have polled their members if they WANTED RD to be invited to their AGM? Because, surely, the AGM MUST be open to all members?
And, if the majority of those members there, wanted to shout at the top of their voices "F*CK OFF!!!!" every time RD was to open his mouth, how could the Board stop that? That would just be going against what a democratic organisation was all about?
There's no need to talk about sides as I'm pretty sure we've all worked out what 'side' you are on. Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to suggest you could not take part in a civilised Q&A despite the fact that you are doing otherwise to me (a paid-up CAST member).
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
But you are happy to tell readers what other people WILL do even though you later admit it MAY have been an extreme view.
Who would voluntarily go somewhere where there us a good chance of meeting a torrent of abuse?
I think such a comment also does a bit of a dis-service to those who would have organised such a meeting if he had accepted. It also simply reinforces Roland's perception of all football fans as thugs and neanderthals...
Absolutely. If the last couple of years has proven anything it's that as a group of supporters we have among us some excellent communicators able to put their message across in a mature, non abusive way. Frankly, compared to most clubs, they have got off very lightly in terms of the levels of personal abuse levelled at them and I'm sure this "grown up" approach is reflected in the overwhelmingly positive media coverage of CARD, etc.
To suggest that CAST would allow any meeting to degenerate into a one sided slanging match, given the difficulty in getting anything out of him at all, is a nonsense imo.
But isn't CAST a signatory to CARD?
Let's be clear that CARD stands for Campaign Against Roland Duchatalet. The key word being "AGAINST". Whatever may be the agenda, if you have That as part of your slogan, he would have to be bonkers to turn up...
If he had bothered to explain his apparently bizarre strategy and implementations, we might not have been against him. As it is, we are reasonable people, always ready to listen. Failing hearing anything that makes sense, and does not appear to set our club on course for oblivion, we are against him. What other sensible position would you expect a Supporters Trust to take?
I have no intention of taking sides, but my view of the Supporters Trust is that they should follow the lead of the majority of their members.
If the majority of these are opposed to RD, then they should sign up to CARD or any LEGAL opposition the members support.
Which raises another question. Shouldn't the board of CAST not have polled their members if they WANTED RD to be invited to their AGM? Because, surely, the AGM MUST be open to all members?
And, if the majority of those members there, wanted to shout at the top of their voices "F*CK OFF!!!!" every time RD was to open his mouth, how could the Board stop that? That would just be going against what a democratic organisation was all about?
There's no need to talk about sides as I'm pretty sure we've all worked out what 'side' you are on. Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to suggest you could not take part in a civilised Q&A despite the fact that you are doing otherwise to me (a paid-up CAST member).
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
Do you think Duchatelet and Meire are doing a good job?
Who would voluntarily go somewhere where there us a good chance of meeting a torrent of abuse?
I think such a comment also does a bit of a dis-service to those who would have organised such a meeting if he had accepted. It also simply reinforces Roland's perception of all football fans as thugs and neanderthals...
Absolutely. If the last couple of years has proven anything it's that as a group of supporters we have among us some excellent communicators able to put their message across in a mature, non abusive way. Frankly, compared to most clubs, they have got off very lightly in terms of the levels of personal abuse levelled at them and I'm sure this "grown up" approach is reflected in the overwhelmingly positive media coverage of CARD, etc.
To suggest that CAST would allow any meeting to degenerate into a one sided slanging match, given the difficulty in getting anything out of him at all, is a nonsense imo.
But isn't CAST a signatory to CARD?
Let's be clear that CARD stands for Campaign Against Roland Duchatalet. The key word being "AGAINST". Whatever may be the agenda, if you have That as part of your slogan, he would have to be bonkers to turn up...
If he had bothered to explain his apparently bizarre strategy and implementations, we might not have been against him. As it is, we are reasonable people, always ready to listen. Failing hearing anything that makes sense, and does not appear to set our club on course for oblivion, we are against him. What other sensible position would you expect a Supporters Trust to take?
I have no intention of taking sides, but my view of the Supporters Trust is that they should follow the lead of the majority of their members.
If the majority of these are opposed to RD, then they should sign up to CARD or any LEGAL opposition the members support.
Which raises another question. Shouldn't the board of CAST not have polled their members if they WANTED RD to be invited to their AGM? Because, surely, the AGM MUST be open to all members?
And, if the majority of those members there, wanted to shout at the top of their voices "F*CK OFF!!!!" every time RD was to open his mouth, how could the Board stop that? That would just be going against what a democratic organisation was all about?
There's no need to talk about sides as I'm pretty sure we've all worked out what 'side' you are on. Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to suggest you could not take part in a civilised Q&A despite the fact that you are doing otherwise to me (a paid-up CAST member).
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
Do you think Duchatelet and Meire are doing a good job?
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
Who would voluntarily go somewhere where there us a good chance of meeting a torrent of abuse?
I think such a comment also does a bit of a dis-service to those who would have organised such a meeting if he had accepted. It also simply reinforces Roland's perception of all football fans as thugs and neanderthals...
Absolutely. If the last couple of years has proven anything it's that as a group of supporters we have among us some excellent communicators able to put their message across in a mature, non abusive way. Frankly, compared to most clubs, they have got off very lightly in terms of the levels of personal abuse levelled at them and I'm sure this "grown up" approach is reflected in the overwhelmingly positive media coverage of CARD, etc.
To suggest that CAST would allow any meeting to degenerate into a one sided slanging match, given the difficulty in getting anything out of him at all, is a nonsense imo.
But isn't CAST a signatory to CARD?
Let's be clear that CARD stands for Campaign Against Roland Duchatalet. The key word being "AGAINST". Whatever may be the agenda, if you have That as part of your slogan, he would have to be bonkers to turn up...
If he had bothered to explain his apparently bizarre strategy and implementations, we might not have been against him. As it is, we are reasonable people, always ready to listen. Failing hearing anything that makes sense, and does not appear to set our club on course for oblivion, we are against him. What other sensible position would you expect a Supporters Trust to take?
I have no intention of taking sides, but my view of the Supporters Trust is that they should follow the lead of the majority of their members.
If the majority of these are opposed to RD, then they should sign up to CARD or any LEGAL opposition the members support.
Which raises another question. Shouldn't the board of CAST not have polled their members if they WANTED RD to be invited to their AGM? Because, surely, the AGM MUST be open to all members?
And, if the majority of those members there, wanted to shout at the top of their voices "F*CK OFF!!!!" every time RD was to open his mouth, how could the Board stop that? That would just be going against what a democratic organisation was all about?
There's no need to talk about sides as I'm pretty sure we've all worked out what 'side' you are on. Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to suggest you could not take part in a civilised Q&A despite the fact that you are doing otherwise to me (a paid-up CAST member).
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
Do you think Duchatelet and Meire are doing a good job?
No. But I couldn't do any better.
Of course you could, we all could. a kin retarded monkey would do better.
Who would voluntarily go somewhere where there us a good chance of meeting a torrent of abuse?
I think such a comment also does a bit of a dis-service to those who would have organised such a meeting if he had accepted. It also simply reinforces Roland's perception of all football fans as thugs and neanderthals...
Absolutely. If the last couple of years has proven anything it's that as a group of supporters we have among us some excellent communicators able to put their message across in a mature, non abusive way. Frankly, compared to most clubs, they have got off very lightly in terms of the levels of personal abuse levelled at them and I'm sure this "grown up" approach is reflected in the overwhelmingly positive media coverage of CARD, etc.
To suggest that CAST would allow any meeting to degenerate into a one sided slanging match, given the difficulty in getting anything out of him at all, is a nonsense imo.
But isn't CAST a signatory to CARD?
Let's be clear that CARD stands for Campaign Against Roland Duchatalet. The key word being "AGAINST". Whatever may be the agenda, if you have That as part of your slogan, he would have to be bonkers to turn up...
If he had bothered to explain his apparently bizarre strategy and implementations, we might not have been against him. As it is, we are reasonable people, always ready to listen. Failing hearing anything that makes sense, and does not appear to set our club on course for oblivion, we are against him. What other sensible position would you expect a Supporters Trust to take?
I have no intention of taking sides, but my view of the Supporters Trust is that they should follow the lead of the majority of their members.
If the majority of these are opposed to RD, then they should sign up to CARD or any LEGAL opposition the members support.
Which raises another question. Shouldn't the board of CAST not have polled their members if they WANTED RD to be invited to their AGM? Because, surely, the AGM MUST be open to all members?
And, if the majority of those members there, wanted to shout at the top of their voices "F*CK OFF!!!!" every time RD was to open his mouth, how could the Board stop that? That would just be going against what a democratic organisation was all about?
There's no need to talk about sides as I'm pretty sure we've all worked out what 'side' you are on. Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to suggest you could not take part in a civilised Q&A despite the fact that you are doing otherwise to me (a paid-up CAST member).
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
Do you think Duchatelet and Meire are doing a good job?
No. But I couldn't do any better.
You could if you employed the right people and had discussions with fans who could massively help to steer Charlton in the right direction.
Who would voluntarily go somewhere where there us a good chance of meeting a torrent of abuse?
I think such a comment also does a bit of a dis-service to those who would have organised such a meeting if he had accepted. It also simply reinforces Roland's perception of all football fans as thugs and neanderthals...
Absolutely. If the last couple of years has proven anything it's that as a group of supporters we have among us some excellent communicators able to put their message across in a mature, non abusive way. Frankly, compared to most clubs, they have got off very lightly in terms of the levels of personal abuse levelled at them and I'm sure this "grown up" approach is reflected in the overwhelmingly positive media coverage of CARD, etc.
To suggest that CAST would allow any meeting to degenerate into a one sided slanging match, given the difficulty in getting anything out of him at all, is a nonsense imo.
But isn't CAST a signatory to CARD?
Let's be clear that CARD stands for Campaign Against Roland Duchatalet. The key word being "AGAINST". Whatever may be the agenda, if you have That as part of your slogan, he would have to be bonkers to turn up...
If he had bothered to explain his apparently bizarre strategy and implementations, we might not have been against him. As it is, we are reasonable people, always ready to listen. Failing hearing anything that makes sense, and does not appear to set our club on course for oblivion, we are against him. What other sensible position would you expect a Supporters Trust to take?
I have no intention of taking sides, but my view of the Supporters Trust is that they should follow the lead of the majority of their members.
If the majority of these are opposed to RD, then they should sign up to CARD or any LEGAL opposition the members support.
Which raises another question. Shouldn't the board of CAST not have polled their members if they WANTED RD to be invited to their AGM? Because, surely, the AGM MUST be open to all members?
And, if the majority of those members there, wanted to shout at the top of their voices "F*CK OFF!!!!" every time RD was to open his mouth, how could the Board stop that? That would just be going against what a democratic organisation was all about?
There's no need to talk about sides as I'm pretty sure we've all worked out what 'side' you are on. Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to suggest you could not take part in a civilised Q&A despite the fact that you are doing otherwise to me (a paid-up CAST member).
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
Do you think Duchatelet and Meire are doing a good job?
No. But I couldn't do any better.
By stating that, you clearly have an understanding that the level of complexities involved in running a football club must be vast. I'd hazard a guess with your acknowledgement that you wouldn't be able to do a better job, that you would in fact consult fans and liaise with the local community. I also expect you'd surround yourself with capable individuals who could lead and guide you along the way.
In effect, by saying you couldn't do a better job than the current regime you have actually stated quite the opposite: you most likely would.
Who would voluntarily go somewhere where there us a good chance of meeting a torrent of abuse?
I think such a comment also does a bit of a dis-service to those who would have organised such a meeting if he had accepted. It also simply reinforces Roland's perception of all football fans as thugs and neanderthals...
Absolutely. If the last couple of years has proven anything it's that as a group of supporters we have among us some excellent communicators able to put their message across in a mature, non abusive way. Frankly, compared to most clubs, they have got off very lightly in terms of the levels of personal abuse levelled at them and I'm sure this "grown up" approach is reflected in the overwhelmingly positive media coverage of CARD, etc.
To suggest that CAST would allow any meeting to degenerate into a one sided slanging match, given the difficulty in getting anything out of him at all, is a nonsense imo.
But isn't CAST a signatory to CARD?
Let's be clear that CARD stands for Campaign Against Roland Duchatalet. The key word being "AGAINST". Whatever may be the agenda, if you have That as part of your slogan, he would have to be bonkers to turn up...
If he had bothered to explain his apparently bizarre strategy and implementations, we might not have been against him. As it is, we are reasonable people, always ready to listen. Failing hearing anything that makes sense, and does not appear to set our club on course for oblivion, we are against him. What other sensible position would you expect a Supporters Trust to take?
I have no intention of taking sides, but my view of the Supporters Trust is that they should follow the lead of the majority of their members.
If the majority of these are opposed to RD, then they should sign up to CARD or any LEGAL opposition the members support.
Which raises another question. Shouldn't the board of CAST not have polled their members if they WANTED RD to be invited to their AGM? Because, surely, the AGM MUST be open to all members?
And, if the majority of those members there, wanted to shout at the top of their voices "F*CK OFF!!!!" every time RD was to open his mouth, how could the Board stop that? That would just be going against what a democratic organisation was all about?
There's no need to talk about sides as I'm pretty sure we've all worked out what 'side' you are on. Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to suggest you could not take part in a civilised Q&A despite the fact that you are doing otherwise to me (a paid-up CAST member).
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
Do you think Duchatelet and Meire are doing a good job?
No. But I couldn't do any better.
I think you have just admitted to being Katrien Meire.
Comments
In the latest guidelines agreed between the EFL and Supporters Direct, under Government supervision, there are the following clauses:
111 Supporter Engagement
111.1 Clubs shall hold at least two meetings/fans forums per season to which its supporters (or representatives) are to be invited in order to discuss significant issues relating to the Club. The framework for these meetings shall be documented in the Club’s customer charter, but are subject to the following minimum criteria:
111.1.1 Clubs must be represented by the Club’s majority owner, board director(s) or other senior executive(s);
This implies that most people join a Supporters Trust in the full expectation that it will seek to meet with the owner, and a reasonable expectation that it will actually happen. So no, we don't need to poll our members to do something which is line with emerging best practice backed by the UK Government.
As for your description of the possible behaviour of our membership at such a meeting, we have more faith in them than you do.
From the Trusts point of view it supports that they continue to have a dialogue with the Owner and shows that he has snubbed the legitimate body representing a proportion of the fans and does help in the PR war, although we probably don't need anymore help than they already give us in that area.
It's a PUPPET!
However, it would not have hurt to send a bland 'thanks but sorry' reply. And it does not excuse that woman for seemingly not speaking to anyone not thoroughly vetted and approved beforehand and then claiming she is listening to the fans.
I may have been quoting an extreme view, but I still say that the members have the right to treat anyone at their AGM with any amount of disdain that they wish, and you really have no authority to tell them to do otherwise, as they have overall authority of the Supporters Trust Board.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
This should equate to a good five - six thousand letters. Very bad publicity and news worthy if he should completely ignore.
My family come before everything...
In effect, by saying you couldn't do a better job than the current regime you have actually stated quite the opposite: you most likely would.