The fundraising is a red herring because CACT has planned to give a significant part of the money away to other charities. The main beneficiary anyway is likely to be the catering contractor.
As for people attending, it's entirely a matter of individual choice. Nobody I know has a problem with anyone else attending, but equally you can't make decisions for those who choose not to participate because they want nothing to do with the regime or for any other reason.
The event is nothing to do with the regime.
Of course it is. Why is Meire quoted in the release announcing it? Answer: because she is making exactly that point.
Nobody with any sense would have attached her name to it. To encourage ticket sales you would use Keith Peacock, for example, who is on the committee and is paid to represent the football club.
Earlier this week people said she was a coward for not speaking out. Previously she was lambasted for ignoring our history.
Now she's in the wrong for saying a handful of words about something that is a massive part of the club's existence and history.
You're now addressing a different point. The one to which I responded is your claim that the event "is nothing to do with the regime". I am asking you, why in that case, the announcement contained the following statement.
Katrien Meire, Chief Executive of Charlton Athletic, said: “The Legends United match was such a fantastic event and the perfect way to begin our season of celebration. It was a pleasure to see so many of the legends who have made this club what it is and we’re looking forward to welcoming some of them back for the game against Portsmouth.
“We hope December 9th at the game and the 10th at the celebration dinner will be very special days at The Valley for the fans and everyone connected with Charlton.”
The ultimate charitable beneficiaries are not an issue - raising the funds in the first place is
KM involved with the invitation - an evident faux-pas. One final bit of bravado ? One last irresistible embrace of the spotlight ? Anyway, although they were nice words only if they were in Dutch could they be considered as genuinely her very own .... blatant PR
Of course it's a free choice whether to attend or not. My intention was to re-balance the discussion and to encourage any waverers
Sometimes the fan's job is to support not just the team but other fans as well
For such a special match boycotters should have an untroubled conscience if they decide to call at least a one-match truce - they should be setting their own agenda, not passing the responsibility to RD
I don't think the event will be a flop, but just in case of poor up-take I have reserved a table. It's not cheap, but, well, ok. I am asking all my invitees - not guests - for a contribution. On the Monday morning they can e-mail me and tell me what they think the night was worth to them. I hope that's one solution.
The fundraising is a red herring because CACT has planned to give a significant part of the money away to other charities. The main beneficiary anyway is likely to be the catering contractor.
As for people attending, it's entirely a matter of individual choice. Nobody I know has a problem with anyone else attending, but equally you can't make decisions for those who choose not to participate because they want nothing to do with the regime or for any other reason.
The event is nothing to do with the regime.
Of course it is. Why is Meire quoted in the release announcing it? Answer: because she is making exactly that point.
Nobody with any sense would have attached her name to it. To encourage ticket sales you would use Keith Peacock, for example, who is on the committee and is paid to represent the football club.
Earlier this week people said she was a coward for not speaking out. Previously she was lambasted for ignoring our history.
Now she's in the wrong for saying a handful of words about something that is a massive part of the club's existence and history.
You're now addressing a different point. The one to which I responded is your claim that the event "is nothing to do with the regime". I am asking you, why in that case, the announcement contained the following statement.
Katrien Meire, Chief Executive of Charlton Athletic, said: “The Legends United match was such a fantastic event and the perfect way to begin our season of celebration. It was a pleasure to see so many of the legends who have made this club what it is and we’re looking forward to welcoming some of them back for the game against Portsmouth.
“We hope December 9th at the game and the 10th at the celebration dinner will be very special days at The Valley for the fans and everyone connected with Charlton.”
You really can't have it both ways.
I don’t get your point. She’s not saying “me and Roland want this to go well for our own pockets” is she.
She’s saying it’s anniversary year (that is factual) ,there was a legends match (factual) and now there’s a dinner (factual). At no point is this being used as an opportunity to beat the drum of the regime - it's the CEO drumming up interest in an (admittedly expensive) event.
The fundraising is a red herring because CACT has planned to give a significant part of the money away to other charities. The main beneficiary anyway is likely to be the catering contractor.
As for people attending, it's entirely a matter of individual choice. Nobody I know has a problem with anyone else attending, but equally you can't make decisions for those who choose not to participate because they want nothing to do with the regime or for any other reason.
The event is nothing to do with the regime.
Of course it is. Why is Meire quoted in the release announcing it? Answer: because she is making exactly that point.
Nobody with any sense would have attached her name to it. To encourage ticket sales you would use Keith Peacock, for example, who is on the committee and is paid to represent the football club.
Earlier this week people said she was a coward for not speaking out. Previously she was lambasted for ignoring our history.
Now she's in the wrong for saying a handful of words about something that is a massive part of the club's existence and history.
You're now addressing a different point. The one to which I responded is your claim that the event "is nothing to do with the regime". I am asking you, why in that case, the announcement contained the following statement.
Katrien Meire, Chief Executive of Charlton Athletic, said: “The Legends United match was such a fantastic event and the perfect way to begin our season of celebration. It was a pleasure to see so many of the legends who have made this club what it is and we’re looking forward to welcoming some of them back for the game against Portsmouth.
“We hope December 9th at the game and the 10th at the celebration dinner will be very special days at The Valley for the fans and everyone connected with Charlton.”
You really can't have it both ways.
I don’t get your point. She’s not saying “me and Roland want this to go well for our own pockets” is she.
She’s saying it’s anniversary year (that is factual) ,there was a legends match (factual) and now there’s a dinner (factual). At no point is this being used as an opportunity to beat the drum of the regime - it's the CEO drumming up interest in an (admittedly expensive) event.
It's the official announcement of the event, not an aside in the programme among other topics. It's not what she says but the fact that in the announcement of the event she is up front and centre, which is what she will no doubt have wanted but is not, in fact, in the interests of the event. It's highly political.
It really makes no odds to me, but to claim "it is nothing to do with the regime" when the regime has stuck its oar into the official announcement is a bit strange.
The overall problem for me is that they could have taken a deep breath and said, OK, this is too big an event to be damaged by current petty squabbles, we have to involve all the key players from the start, make sure they want to be part of it. They were not big enough to do that. I kind of understand that it would have been quite a deep breath, but they were not capable of it.
For me the anniversary would be all about the wonderful people I met during that long fight, and which culminated in two of the most exhilarating experiences of my life; the final day of the election culminating in the count at Woolwich Town Hall, and then 5.12 92 itself. These memories have sod all to do with the players, even those who played in that game. They certainly have sod all to do with the current regime. Its not that they were not around then, rather that they have portrayed some of the same wonderful people I referred to as enemies of the club who want it to fail.
I held back a bit to see how other VP people would react. (most are not on CL). It was overwhelmingly "all of us or none of us". So if they are not going, what would be the point for me? It's just another overpriced dinner with people talking to players. Nothing wrong with that per se, but neither is there anything about that which evokes 5.12.92.
The fundraising is a red herring because CACT has planned to give a significant part of the money away to other charities. The main beneficiary anyway is likely to be the catering contractor.
As for people attending, it's entirely a matter of individual choice. Nobody I know has a problem with anyone else attending, but equally you can't make decisions for those who choose not to participate because they want nothing to do with the regime or for any other reason.
The event is nothing to do with the regime.
Of course it is. Why is Meire quoted in the release announcing it? Answer: because she is making exactly that point.
Nobody with any sense would have attached her name to it. To encourage ticket sales you would use Keith Peacock, for example, who is on the committee and is paid to represent the football club.
Earlier this week people said she was a coward for not speaking out. Previously she was lambasted for ignoring our history.
Now she's in the wrong for saying a handful of words about something that is a massive part of the club's existence and history.
She won't be here by then if all goes to plan! Could be one hell of a celebration.
People should go if they want and shouldn't go if they don't.
I think the pricing is wrong and that will prevent some people going. I fear they may well overestimate the attendance as they did for the Legends game but that didn't stop the Legends game being a good day and it shouldn't prevent it being an enjoyable dinner either. It might even be better if there are only 200 people plus players etc as more intimate. Might mess up the costings though.
Not my sort of thing in any case. Those Valley Party candidates and activists I know felt it should be everyone or no one not just 10 people but that is a result of inviting the VP people a bit last minute IMHO because the so called "independent" committee was being leaned on by the regime eg not wanting Lord Grade on the committee because his son is vocally anti-regime.
There are other events such as the game v Pompey where a more inclusive celebration could be held and at a lower cost and I hope that there are already plans afoot. Have CACT actually announced the pricing yet or what is happening v Pompey?
One of the reasons the museum are holding our little event is because we felt there should be something on the actual day and something more focused on the history but that shouldn't detract from the Dinner in any way.
The overall problem for me is that they could have taken a deep breath and said, OK, this is too big an event to be damaged by current petty squabbles, we have to involve all the key players from the start, make sure they want to be part of it. They were not big enough to do that. I kind of understand that it would have been quite a deep breath, but they were not capable of it.
For me the anniversary would be all about the wonderful people I met during that long fight, and which culminated in two of the most exhilarating experiences of my life; the final day of the election culminating in the count at Woolwich Town Hall, and then 5.12 92 itself. These memories have sod all to do with the players, even those who played in that game. They certainly have sod all to do with the current regime. Its not that they were not around then, rather that they have portrayed some of the same wonderful people I referred to as enemies of the club who want it to fail.
I held back a bit to see how other VP people would react. (most are not on CL). It was overwhelmingly "all of us or none of us". So if they are not going, what would be the point for me? It's just another overpriced dinner with people talking to players. Nothing wrong with that per se, but neither is there anything about that which evokes 5.12.92.
The lets put aside our differences was put forward to the committee last season and agreed. Has it been carried out? I dont know.
People should go if they want and shouldn't go if they don't.
I think the pricing is wrong and that will prevent some people going. I fear they may well overestimate the attendance as they did for the Legends game but that didn't stop the Legends game being a good day and it shouldn't prevent it being an enjoyable dinner either. It might even be better if there are only 200 people plus players etc as more intimate. Might mess up the costings though.
Not my sort of thing in any case. Those Valley Party candidates and activists I know felt it should be everyone or no one not just 10 people but that is a result of inviting the VP people a bit last minute IMHO because the so called "independent" committee was being leaned on by the regime eg not wanting Lord Grade on the committee because his son is vocally anti-regime.
There are other events such as the game v Pompey where a more inclusive celebration could be held and at a lower cost and I hope that there are already plans afoot. Have CACT actually announced the pricing yet or what is happening v Pompey?
One of the reasons the museum are holding our little event is because we felt there should be something on the actual day and something more focused on the history but that shouldn't detract from the Dinner in any way.
I think realistically the committee could not have invited everyone associated with the Valley Party to the dinner on free tickets, although not all would have been available or wanted to attend anyway. As soon as people are asked to pay that removes the inclusivity. There is no easy solution to this within the context of the event that is planned.
The club/committee could invite all surviving candidates to parade on the pitch at the Portsmouth game. Like Prague I wasn't a candidate and like him, I'm sure, I have no objection to being excluded on that basis. Of course some people who weren't candidates contributed more than some who were, but the candidates are a reasonable proxy and that is a simple opportunity for the crowd to recognise the Valley Party's contribution.
Of course that group includes people who are very hostile to the regime and one or two who may refuse to set foot in The Valley even for that. But it's a potential way of addressing the issue. I don't quite agree with Prague's point about the players - clearly they were a very big part of the day in 1992 - but they didn't get the club back to The Valley. That was achieved by collaboration of fans and certain directors.
I'm no economist but it all boils down to demand. They calculate they can get enough (smaller pool of) people there at the inflated price to cover their costs (room hire, catering, the I'm sure not inconsiderable number of freebies for CACT / Club staff and invited guests, and any other guest associated costs).
They'll then be confident they'll have 'the right people there' to make a few quid off the raffle and auction.
There will be hardly any individuals/ couples buying tickets for £95/£190. It will boil down to how many rich individuals (like Fanny's friend) will take a table for nearly grand and invite guests, or company owners who can put it through their company accounts,
I don't know how many that will be. But the organisers have clearly taken the view there's enough of them to justify the ridiculous price to make the evening viable.
As for the regime aspect, others have made the key points. It's hard to disassociate the regime aspect when it's the virtually the only public thing Meire has been associated to for months, and the Committee have used as key quotes in the publicity. Whether that is important / impacting or not is purely down to individual interpretation, but I don't see how anyone can disassociate it.
The fundraising is a red herring because CACT has planned to give a significant part of the money away to other charities. The main beneficiary anyway is likely to be the catering contractor.
As for people attending, it's entirely a matter of individual choice. Nobody I know has a problem with anyone else attending, but equally you can't make decisions for those who choose not to participate because they want nothing to do with the regime or for any other reason.
The event is nothing to do with the regime.
Of course it is. Why is Meire quoted in the release announcing it? Answer: because she is making exactly that point.
Nobody with any sense would have attached her name to it. To encourage ticket sales you would use Keith Peacock, for example, who is on the committee and is paid to represent the football club.
Earlier this week people said she was a coward for not speaking out. Previously she was lambasted for ignoring our history.
Now she's in the wrong for saying a handful of words about something that is a massive part of the club's existence and history.
Meire could not give a s*** about Charlton Athletic Football Club.
The overall problem for me is that they could have taken a deep breath and said, OK, this is too big an event to be damaged by current petty squabbles, we have to involve all the key players from the start, make sure they want to be part of it. They were not big enough to do that. I kind of understand that it would have been quite a deep breath, but they were not capable of it.
For me the anniversary would be all about the wonderful people I met during that long fight, and which culminated in two of the most exhilarating experiences of my life; the final day of the election culminating in the count at Woolwich Town Hall, and then 5.12 92 itself. These memories have sod all to do with the players, even those who played in that game. They certainly have sod all to do with the current regime. Its not that they were not around then, rather that they have portrayed some of the same wonderful people I referred to as enemies of the club who want it to fail.
I held back a bit to see how other VP people would react. (most are not on CL). It was overwhelmingly "all of us or none of us". So if they are not going, what would be the point for me? It's just another overpriced dinner with people talking to players. Nothing wrong with that per se, but neither is there anything about that which evokes 5.12.92.
The lets put aside our differences was put forward to the committee last season and agreed. Has it been carried out? I dont know.
Well the first I heard of what was planned was when @Airman Brown got the email on 4th October. Part of it reads:
In recognition of the vital role played by the supporters who formed the groundbreaking 'Valley Party' - which, on 3rd May 1990 famously won 14,838 votes in the Greenwich local election, something that was instrumental in ensuring the Club's eventual return to The Valley in 1992 - the committee would like to offer a complimentary table for ten people to be our guests and to 'represent' the Valley Party on the night.
I suppose some might suggest that the very act of sending it to the Chief Vinegar Pisser was a sign of putting aside differences, but it wasn't what I had in mind by the phrase.
The fundraising is a red herring because CACT has planned to give a significant part of the money away to other charities. The main beneficiary anyway is likely to be the catering contractor.
As for people attending, it's entirely a matter of individual choice. Nobody I know has a problem with anyone else attending, but equally you can't make decisions for those who choose not to participate because they want nothing to do with the regime or for any other reason.
Great post GHF. As you say, the event is far too expensive, and if anyone can't attend for financial reasons, that's fair enough, but to boycott the 25th anniversary dinner for BTTV is a shame. Posters have stated there have been others but a 25 year one is special. Am sure the response will be better if the takeover goes ahead by then, but if not, it's easy to ignore the SMT and just enjoy the event with the players past and present.
I write this as someone who eats very little due to my cancer surgery , not saying this for sympathy, but if anyone has good reason to say it's too dear, I am certainly one of them. It's not about the food though is it? It's to celebrate our victory in getting the team back to it's rightful home, The Valley.
The bit in bold is the important part. Nothing else really matters.
It's all to do with the current ownership. If not fans would be running it and not be priced out.
The top tables should be the Valley Party and the senior management team from the wilderness years plus the team manager and key players.
It should be about their achievements for us. The current SMT, team management and players should be savvy enough to take background places. Or even no places to allow those involved to go if necessary.
So many comments that as usual come back to the same desire to find fault in anything that can be attributed even indirectly to the current SMT regardless of the true intentions whether we know them or not.
Reality is any 'social' event of this nature will divide opinion whether it be cost, venue, cuisine or entertainment etc. Moreover though something like a dinner is only ever going to attract a select group / audience as by far the majority of supporters only ever go to the match and none of the periphery events or even the bars in the ground i.e. the majority of us simply go for the football.
We are divided on cost already as to which stand we choose to sit in and if we have the pockets for hospitality etc.
Similarly most of us don't go and never do the POTY (I.e. not commenting on any involvement from Meire) as its not going to be for all regardless of cost.
As such this is a relative irrelevance as those that want to go and those that don't won't!
It's more interesting as to what they (and I mean the collective committee) can do on the day of the Portsmouth game to recognise this anniversary and try make that inclusive and an enjoyable event.
For me a repeat of the medley of the songs played over the tannoy as was then that reference 'home', 'valley' etc. would be nice if 'naff' to some - just a personal memory I take from that day.
I don't quite agree with Prague's point about the players - clearly they were a very big part of the day in 1992 - but they didn't get the club back to The Valley. That was achieved by collaboration of fans and certain directors.
Yes, you are right, i should have made clear that it was just my personal feeling. If I were to go, and none of the key fans and directors were there, the presence of the players would not be anywhere near enough for me to feel it as a commemoration of that day. How much really does it mean to them? I am sure great pros like Garry Nelson will talk warmly with the guests and play up their take on it, but I can't believe for most of them it was the biggest day of their careers, and I can't believe they really relish spending all evening talking about it.
I don't quite agree with Prague's point about the players - clearly they were a very big part of the day in 1992 - but they didn't get the club back to The Valley. That was achieved by collaboration of fans and certain directors.
Yes, you are right, i should have made clear that it was just my personal feeling. If I were to go, and none of the key fans and directors were there, the presence of the players would not be anywhere near enough for me to feel it as a commemoration of that day. How much really does it mean to them? I am sure great pros like Garry Nelson will talk warmly with the guests and play up their take on it, but I can't believe for most of them it was the biggest day of their careers, and I can't believe they really relish spending all evening talking about it.
Garry Nelson was at a work event in my office about a month ago. He told a colleague of mine ( a fellow supporter) that this game was the biggest of his career.
I will remember the great day by taking the same seat I took against Portsmouth 25 years ago (ok it's not the actual day but close enough). That day I had a tear in my eye because we returned to OUR home.
This time I wil have a tear in my eye as I will either look around me and see what the current c###s in charge have done to OUR club or a tear of joy as a takeover has seen the back of them. I really think it might be the latter.
This really is a discussion that shouldn't be occurring.
The "organising" committee have managed to mis-handle even this golden opportunity. Whether that has been directly or indirectly regime-influenced, who knows or frankly, cares so let it just be said that the whole sorry issue is uncannily symptomatic of the way things have been run in recent years. And - that's most definitely not the way we were used to things running in the past.
The whole story of CAFC in exile has many extraordinary facets. After the remarkable achievements of the VP, possibly unique both in political and in sporting terms, the campaign to bring the Club home took a further two and a half years of twists and turns. Just one little-mentioned example is the VIP scheme, which in an economic down-turn raised £1.3 million from the fans in no time flat. And just in case the present powers-that-be are feeling rather unloved and unappreciated (that is, if they actually give one), all through those wonderful times the club were constantly being berated by the fans to do better.
Maybe this gala event stands today a little tarnished but hopefully there is time enough still to find some shine, despite the failings and indifference of a club elite led by a CEO so hapless she could fall into a barrel of cocks and come up clutching a stick of rhubarb. As usual, what will make all the difference on the night itself is the fans - their happiness, their enthusiasm and their unshakeable pride in THEIR club.
The fact that there is a room hire charge at The Valley for this event, tells you what's wrong with the club.
Unbelievable if true. Unfortunately I believe it.
The catering is outsourced so the company, Deleware North, makes its money by hiring out the rooms and selling meals and drink.
Can't really blame the company for charging as that is its business. Whether they charge too much or whether the deal should have ever been made in the first place is another point.
The man who worked for Deleware North at the time the deal was made with Ben Kensell and Katrien Meire? Tony Keohane.
Comments
Katrien Meire, Chief Executive of Charlton Athletic, said: “The Legends United match was such a fantastic event and the perfect way to begin our season of celebration. It was a pleasure to see so many of the legends who have made this club what it is and we’re looking forward to welcoming some of them back for the game against Portsmouth.
“We hope December 9th at the game and the 10th at the celebration dinner will be very special days at The Valley for the fans and everyone connected with Charlton.”
You really can't have it both ways.
The ultimate charitable beneficiaries are not an issue - raising the funds in the first place is
KM involved with the invitation - an evident faux-pas. One final bit of bravado ? One last irresistible embrace of the spotlight ? Anyway, although they were nice words only if they were in Dutch could they be considered as genuinely her very own .... blatant PR
Of course it's a free choice whether to attend or not. My intention was to re-balance the discussion and to encourage any waverers
Sometimes the fan's job is to support not just the team but other fans as well
For such a special match boycotters should have an untroubled conscience if they decide to call at least a one-match truce - they should be setting their own agenda, not passing the responsibility to RD
I don't think the event will be a flop, but just in case of poor up-take I have reserved a table. It's not cheap, but, well, ok. I am asking all my invitees - not guests - for a contribution. On the Monday morning they can e-mail me and tell me what they think the night was worth to them. I hope that's one solution.
And I've edited your typo of the word edited
See you on the 5th sir
Thanks, my dyslexia kicking in.
See you on the 5th and remind Alan he promised to give me some really interesting stuff from the day.
She’s saying it’s anniversary year (that is factual) ,there was a legends match (factual) and now there’s a dinner (factual). At no point is this being used as an opportunity to beat the drum of the regime - it's the CEO drumming up interest in an (admittedly expensive) event.
It really makes no odds to me, but to claim "it is nothing to do with the regime" when the regime has stuck its oar into the official announcement is a bit strange.
For me the anniversary would be all about the wonderful people I met during that long fight, and which culminated in two of the most exhilarating experiences of my life; the final day of the election culminating in the count at Woolwich Town Hall, and then 5.12 92 itself. These memories have sod all to do with the players, even those who played in that game. They certainly have sod all to do with the current regime. Its not that they were not around then, rather that they have portrayed some of the same wonderful people I referred to as enemies of the club who want it to fail.
I held back a bit to see how other VP people would react. (most are not on CL). It was overwhelmingly "all of us or none of us". So if they are not going, what would be the point for me? It's just another overpriced dinner with people talking to players. Nothing wrong with that per se, but neither is there anything about that which evokes 5.12.92.
I think the pricing is wrong and that will prevent some people going. I fear they may well overestimate the attendance as they did for the Legends game but that didn't stop the Legends game being a good day and it shouldn't prevent it being an enjoyable dinner either. It might even be better if there are only 200 people plus players etc as more intimate. Might mess up the costings though.
Not my sort of thing in any case. Those Valley Party candidates and activists I know felt it should be everyone or no one not just 10 people but that is a result of inviting the VP people a bit last minute IMHO because the so called "independent" committee was being leaned on by the regime eg not wanting Lord Grade on the committee because his son is vocally anti-regime.
There are other events such as the game v Pompey where a more inclusive celebration could be held and at a lower cost and I hope that there are already plans afoot. Have CACT actually announced the pricing yet or what is happening v Pompey?
One of the reasons the museum are holding our little event is because we felt there should be something on the actual day and something more focused on the history but that shouldn't detract from the Dinner in any way.
The club/committee could invite all surviving candidates to parade on the pitch at the Portsmouth game. Like Prague I wasn't a candidate and like him, I'm sure, I have no objection to being excluded on that basis. Of course some people who weren't candidates contributed more than some who were, but the candidates are a reasonable proxy and that is a simple opportunity for the crowd to recognise the Valley Party's contribution.
Of course that group includes people who are very hostile to the regime and one or two who may refuse to set foot in The Valley even for that. But it's a potential way of addressing the issue. I don't quite agree with Prague's point about the players - clearly they were a very big part of the day in 1992 - but they didn't get the club back to The Valley. That was achieved by collaboration of fans and certain directors.
They'll then be confident they'll have 'the right people there' to make a few quid off the raffle and auction.
There will be hardly any individuals/ couples buying tickets for £95/£190. It will boil down to how many rich individuals (like Fanny's friend) will take a table for nearly grand and invite guests, or company owners who can put it through their company accounts,
I don't know how many that will be. But the organisers have clearly taken the view there's enough of them to justify the ridiculous price to make the evening viable.
As for the regime aspect, others have made the key points. It's hard to disassociate the regime aspect when it's the virtually the only public thing Meire has been associated to for months, and the Committee have used as key quotes in the publicity. Whether that is important / impacting or not is purely down to individual interpretation, but I don't see how anyone can disassociate it.
In recognition of the vital role played by the supporters who formed the groundbreaking 'Valley Party' - which, on 3rd May 1990 famously won 14,838 votes in the Greenwich local election, something that was instrumental in ensuring the Club's eventual return to The Valley in 1992 - the committee would like to offer a complimentary table for ten people to be our guests and to 'represent' the Valley Party on the night.
I suppose some might suggest that the very act of sending it to the Chief Vinegar Pisser was a sign of putting aside differences, but it wasn't what I had in mind by the phrase.
The top tables should be the Valley Party and the senior management team from the wilderness years plus the team manager and key players.
It should be about their achievements for us. The current SMT, team management and players should be savvy enough to take background places. Or even no places to allow those involved to go if necessary.
Reality is any 'social' event of this nature will divide opinion whether it be cost, venue, cuisine or entertainment etc. Moreover though something like a dinner is only ever going to attract a select group / audience as by far the majority of supporters only ever go to the match and none of the periphery events or even the bars in the ground i.e. the majority of us simply go for the football.
We are divided on cost already as to which stand we choose to sit in and if we have the pockets for hospitality etc.
Similarly most of us don't go and never do the POTY (I.e. not commenting on any involvement from Meire) as its not going to be for all regardless of cost.
As such this is a relative irrelevance as those that want to go and those that don't won't!
It's more interesting as to what they (and I mean the collective committee) can do on the day of the Portsmouth game to recognise this anniversary and try make that inclusive and an enjoyable event.
For me a repeat of the medley of the songs played over the tannoy as was then that reference 'home', 'valley' etc. would be nice if 'naff' to some - just a personal memory I take from that day.
I don't quite agree with Prague's point about the players - clearly they were a very big part of the day in 1992 - but they didn't get the club back to The Valley. That was achieved by collaboration of fans and certain directors.
Yes, you are right, i should have made clear that it was just my personal feeling. If I were to go, and none of the key fans and directors were there, the presence of the players would not be anywhere near enough for me to feel it as a commemoration of that day. How much really does it mean to them? I am sure great pros like Garry Nelson will talk warmly with the guests and play up their take on it, but I can't believe for most of them it was the biggest day of their careers, and I can't believe they really relish spending all evening talking about it.
This time I wil have a tear in my eye as I will either look around me and see what the current c###s in charge have done to OUR club or a tear of joy as a takeover has seen the back of them. I really think it might be the latter.
This really is a discussion that shouldn't be occurring.
The "organising" committee have managed to mis-handle even this golden opportunity. Whether that has been directly or indirectly regime-influenced, who knows or frankly, cares so let it just be said that the whole sorry issue is uncannily symptomatic of the way things have been run in recent years. And - that's most definitely not the way we were used to things running in the past.
The whole story of CAFC in exile has many extraordinary facets. After the remarkable achievements of the VP, possibly unique both in political and in sporting terms, the campaign to bring the Club home took a further two and a half years of twists and turns. Just one little-mentioned example is the VIP scheme, which in an economic down-turn raised £1.3 million from the fans in no time flat. And just in case the present powers-that-be are feeling rather unloved and unappreciated (that is, if they actually give one), all through those wonderful times the club were constantly being berated by the fans to do better.
Maybe this gala event stands today a little tarnished but hopefully there is time enough still to find some shine, despite the failings and indifference of a club elite led by a CEO so hapless she could fall into a barrel of cocks and come up clutching a stick of rhubarb. As usual, what will make all the difference on the night itself is the fans - their happiness, their enthusiasm and their unshakeable pride in THEIR club.
Please - let's make it happen, and then move on.
Can't really blame the company for charging as that is its business. Whether they charge too much or whether the deal should have ever been made in the first place is another point.
The man who worked for Deleware North at the time the deal was made with Ben Kensell and Katrien Meire? Tony Keohane.