It looks like the structure is similar to the fans forum structure. Which in itself was obscure and questionable and never seemed to have any kind of regularity or credible conduits for fans.
I think this ‘advisory board’ is going to be as toothless as the fans forum, and is probably being established so the club can declare they’re doing something about fan engagement.
On the other hand the Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust is part of the wider movement in football of supporters trusts, membership does cost £5 which indicates a slight ‘money where your mouth is’ aspect of things, the Trust has a formal constitution, accounts, annual elections and is democratic in structure, we get a weekly newsletter, surveys, and a sense of competent serious people trying to help the club.
I suppose there may be reasons, but I can’t for the life of me understand why the need for the complicated malarkey proposed, and the club probably only needs to interact with the supporters trust on a serious formal basis.
.
In my opinion the club under the current ownership have the Supporters Trust exactly where they want them.
These sorts of things are always going to have silly names and “mission statements”. The only real metric of success is whether it improves communication between club and fans, that’s something that’s really been missing for many years. Let’s give it a shot, and if it doesn’t work then slag it off.
I suppose it’s testament to the amount of times people have seen these things before mate. Lots of buzzwords and positive language, leading to not particularly much difference to whatever has been repackaged from before.
This advisory board was announced in January, it’s now October still looks some way off till it’s up and running. Whether it then becomes a tick box or anything meaningful, time will tell.
You’ve also got to factor that about 90% of fans don’t give a stuff about this sort of stuff
This is the point, I think, and it's perfectly reasonable that most people aren't interested in what goes on behind the scenes. However, if you go back to the 1990s fans who did care about this sort of stuff made a real difference, because the board worked very closely and genuinely with them and adopted many of their ideas, principally through Target 10,000. However, that was supported by a strong narrative and sense of direction for the club, as well as mutual respect and trust between individuals. This was achieved through real outcomes - Valley Party, VIP scheme fundraising, return to The Valley and strong growth in attendances led by fan initiatives. We are some distance from that at present.
I think structures can deliver (less keen on vision statements) but they need commitment from both sides.
It looks like the structure is similar to the fans forum structure. Which in itself was obscure and questionable and never seemed to have any kind of regularity or credible conduits for fans.
I think this ‘advisory board’ is going to be as toothless as the fans forum, and is probably being established so the club can declare they’re doing something about fan engagement.
On the other hand the Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust is part of the wider movement in football of supporters trusts, membership does cost £5 which indicates a slight ‘money where your mouth is’ aspect of things, the Trust has a formal constitution, accounts, annual elections and is democratic in structure, we get a weekly newsletter, surveys, and a sense of competent serious people trying to help the club.
I suppose there may be reasons, but I can’t for the life of me understand why the need for the complicated malarkey proposed, and the club probably only needs to interact with the supporters trust on a serious formal basis.
Smaller and more eccentric bodies like Bromley Addicks, East Kent, City Addicks, the reminiscence group, the disabled supporters association, the museum can be dealt with on an individual needs must basis, the supporters trust has a bigger constituency of members and as such should be engaged with more seriously than the ad hoc groups.
I would suggest that fans who care about this kind of thing join and get involved with the supporters trust.
In my opinion the club under the current ownership have the Supporters Trust exactly where they want them.
Will it help us score more goals or win more matches ? No.
Will a fan be able to ask Nathan Jones what his strategy is, why the "set piece" taker is useless or why can't the wingbacks cross the ball ? No
All a bit pointless then.
Do you not care about improving your experience at The Valley? What about engaging with new fans? How about opportunities to ask questions to the board of directors?
I'm not pretending it's perfect or going to make a huge difference but it's not pointless
These sorts of things are always going to have silly names and “mission statements”. The only real metric of success is whether it improves communication between club and fans, that’s something that’s really been missing for many years. Let’s give it a shot, and if it doesn’t work then slag it off.
I suppose it’s testament to the amount of times people have seen these things before mate. Lots of buzzwords and positive language, leading to not particularly much difference to whatever has been repackaged from before.
This advisory board was announced in January, it’s now October still looks some way off till it’s up and running. Whether it then becomes a tick box or anything meaningful, time will tell.
You’ve also got to factor that about 90% of fans don’t give a stuff about this sort of stuff
This is the point, I think, and it's perfectly reasonable that most people aren't interested in what goes on behind the scenes. However, if you go back to the 1990s fans who did care about this sort of stuff made a real difference, because the board worked very closely and genuinely with them and adopted many of their ideas, principally through Target 10,000. However, that was supported by a strong narrative and sense of direction for the club, as well as mutual respect and trust between individuals. This was achieved through real outcomes - Valley Party, VIP scheme fundraising, return to The Valley and strong growth in attendances led by fan initiatives. We are some distance from that at present.
I think structures can deliver (less keen on vision statements) but they need commitment from both sides.
Is that level of fan engagement more difficult to achieve in 2024 given the proliferation of social media? I’m guessing it was easier to “control the message” in the 1990’s whereas now every fan has an opinion which they can broadcast to world and demand instant satisfaction.
These sorts of things are always going to have silly names and “mission statements”. The only real metric of success is whether it improves communication between club and fans, that’s something that’s really been missing for many years. Let’s give it a shot, and if it doesn’t work then slag it off.
I suppose it’s testament to the amount of times people have seen these things before mate. Lots of buzzwords and positive language, leading to not particularly much difference to whatever has been repackaged from before.
This advisory board was announced in January, it’s now October still looks some way off till it’s up and running. Whether it then becomes a tick box or anything meaningful, time will tell.
You’ve also got to factor that about 90% of fans don’t give a stuff about this sort of stuff
This is the point, I think, and it's perfectly reasonable that most people aren't interested in what goes on behind the scenes. However, if you go back to the 1990s fans who did care about this sort of stuff made a real difference, because the board worked very closely and genuinely with them and adopted many of their ideas, principally through Target 10,000. However, that was supported by a strong narrative and sense of direction for the club, as well as mutual respect and trust between individuals. This was achieved through real outcomes - Valley Party, VIP scheme fundraising, return to The Valley and strong growth in attendances led by fan initiatives. We are some distance from that at present.
I think structures can deliver (less keen on vision statements) but they need commitment from both sides.
Is that level of fan engagement more difficult to achieve in 2024 given the proliferation of social media? I’m guessing it was easier to “control the message” in the 1990’s whereas now every fan has an opinion which they can broadcast to world and demand instant satisfaction.
Sort of. But if you know what you're doing and have a strong message you can build a much larger movement and engage people from all over the world. The digital side of stuff is something we haven't been great at as a fanbase really. Some of the CARD stunts that have inspired other clubs to do similar would have gone massively viral if they happened today though. The funeral one would've gone mega viral worldwide I think
These sorts of things are always going to have silly names and “mission statements”. The only real metric of success is whether it improves communication between club and fans, that’s something that’s really been missing for many years. Let’s give it a shot, and if it doesn’t work then slag it off.
I suppose it’s testament to the amount of times people have seen these things before mate. Lots of buzzwords and positive language, leading to not particularly much difference to whatever has been repackaged from before.
This advisory board was announced in January, it’s now October still looks some way off till it’s up and running. Whether it then becomes a tick box or anything meaningful, time will tell.
You’ve also got to factor that about 90% of fans don’t give a stuff about this sort of stuff
This is the point, I think, and it's perfectly reasonable that most people aren't interested in what goes on behind the scenes. However, if you go back to the 1990s fans who did care about this sort of stuff made a real difference, because the board worked very closely and genuinely with them and adopted many of their ideas, principally through Target 10,000. However, that was supported by a strong narrative and sense of direction for the club, as well as mutual respect and trust between individuals. This was achieved through real outcomes - Valley Party, VIP scheme fundraising, return to The Valley and strong growth in attendances led by fan initiatives. We are some distance from that at present.
I think structures can deliver (less keen on vision statements) but they need commitment from both sides.
Is that level of fan engagement more difficult to achieve in 2024 given the proliferation of social media? I’m guessing it was easier to “control the message” in the 1990’s whereas now every fan has an opinion which they can broadcast to world and demand instant satisfaction.
Sort of. But if you know what you're doing and have a strong message you can build a much larger movement and engage people from all over the world. The digital side of stuff is something we haven't been great at as a fanbase really. Some of the CARD stunts that have inspired other clubs to do similar would have gone massively viral if they happened today though. The funeral one would've gone mega viral worldwide I think
Especially given the very handsome coffin bearers!
Boy oh boy, yet another one of these fans initiative led involvement schemes. In 65 years I have seen so many come and go……truthfully I lost track years ago. Don’t get me wrong, I think most of them have been worthwhile projects set up by well meaning individuals but I’m not sure why they keep changing so often and exactly who is it that dreams up the next version with the sole purpose of a new name and a little bit of buzzword tweaking thrown in? 🧐
It looks like the structure is similar to the fans forum structure. Which in itself was obscure and questionable and never seemed to have any kind of regularity or credible conduits for fans.
I think this ‘advisory board’ is going to be as toothless as the fans forum, and is probably being established so the club can declare they’re doing something about fan engagement.
On the other hand the Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust is part of the wider movement in football of supporters trusts, membership does cost £5 which indicates a slight ‘money where your mouth is’ aspect of things, the Trust has a formal constitution, accounts, annual elections and is democratic in structure, we get a weekly newsletter, surveys, and a sense of competent serious people trying to help the club.
I suppose there may be reasons, but I can’t for the life of me understand why the need for the complicated malarkey proposed, and the club probably only needs to interact with the supporters trust on a serious formal basis.
Smaller and more eccentric bodies like Bromley Addicks, East Kent, City Addicks, the reminiscence group, the disabled supporters association, the museum can be dealt with on an individual needs must basis, the supporters trust has a bigger constituency of members and as such should be engaged with more seriously than the ad hoc groups.
I would suggest that fans who care about this kind of thing join and get involved with the supporters trust.
City Addicks shouldn’t be at the table, hasn’t been a meeting for ages.
It looks like the structure is similar to the fans forum structure. Which in itself was obscure and questionable and never seemed to have any kind of regularity or credible conduits for fans.
I think this ‘advisory board’ is going to be as toothless as the fans forum, and is probably being established so the club can declare they’re doing something about fan engagement.
On the other hand the Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust is part of the wider movement in football of supporters trusts, membership does cost £5 which indicates a slight ‘money where your mouth is’ aspect of things, the Trust has a formal constitution, accounts, annual elections and is democratic in structure, we get a weekly newsletter, surveys, and a sense of competent serious people trying to help the club.
I suppose there may be reasons, but I can’t for the life of me understand why the need for the complicated malarkey proposed, and the club probably only needs to interact with the supporters trust on a serious formal basis.
Smaller and more eccentric bodies like Bromley Addicks, East Kent, City Addicks, the reminiscence group, the disabled supporters association, the museum can be dealt with on an individual needs must basis, the supporters trust has a bigger constituency of members and as such should be engaged with more seriously than the ad hoc groups.
I would suggest that fans who care about this kind of thing join and get involved with the supporters trust.
City Addicks shouldn’t be at the table, hasn’t been a meeting for ages.
I welcome this although I share some of the reservations of other about how effective it will be.
Asking "will it help us score goals?" is silly as that is not the direct aim but if it leads to better communication and so a better run club which in turn leads to more income and profit and so a bigger playing budget then it just might.
The cynical will say it is just playing lip service or it is just a talking shop. That could be true and ultimately it will succeed based on how willing the club is to listen and most importantly to act. It also needs people on the board willing to challenge and disagree in a constructive way.
It's not going to solve every problem overnight but why let perfect be the enemy of good?
It is a step in the right direction although I have some doubts on the design.
I think an advisory board should be made up of people with the right skills IE HR, finance, quality control, legal, operational, marketing, etc that make up modern companies rather than place men or women from certain organisations but the club have decided to go down that route.
I think that limits the talent pool available and one thing we should all know is to never underestimate the collective skills base of Charlton fans.
Even if you accept the benefits of having reps from CACT, CAST and the EPA I'm not sure why CACT and CAST need two each on an 8 person board or why one of the three remaining elected posts is reserved for lounge users.
In effect, that leaves just two places for the general fan base to elect which is, IMHO, too few.
I would also hope that candidates for the three elected posts have to collect 20 or so nominations from other registered fans otherwise the elections will consist of dozens of candidates and so become unworkable.
The Fans Forum or whatever it is called now is effectively dead in the water. Having no club representative at their meetings make it pointless, which seems to have been the design. Attendees are not likely to attend meetings when no one is there is listen other than a fan advisor not employed by the club. That is a shame as it closing the door on some committed people with a lot to offer as well as "eccentric" specialist areas of knowledge.
Boy oh boy, yet another one of these fans initiative led involvement schemes. In 65 years I have seen so many come and go……truthfully I lost track years ago. Don’t get me wrong, I think most of them have been worthwhile projects set up by well meaning individuals but I’m not sure why they keep changing so often and exactly who is it that dreams up the next version with the sole purpose of a new name and a little bit of buzzword tweaking thrown in? 🧐
The club has had at least six distinct ownership regimes over the last 15 years. Hardly surprising there is no consistency in anything.
What qualifies CAST to have 2 automatic places on the group?
From the YouTube meeting that methven and carter were on, sounds as if it was always planned to have CAST on the board and closer working ties with them.
makes sense as they’re the only ‘democratically elected’ fan group , as well as having the most members- c2400?
What qualifies CAST to have 2 automatic places on the group?
From the YouTube meeting that methven and carter were on, sounds as if it was always planned to have CAST on the board and closer working ties with them.
makes sense as they’re the only ‘democratically elected’ fan group , as well as having the most members- c2400?
Not correct, Bromley Addicks are also democratically elected
What qualifies CAST to have 2 automatic places on the group?
From the YouTube meeting that methven and carter were on, sounds as if it was always planned to have CAST on the board and closer working ties with them.
makes sense as they’re the only ‘democratically elected’ fan group , as well as having the most members- c2400?
I have no issue with CAST having a place, I thinks its sensible but 2 on an 8 seat board?
What qualifies CAST to have 2 automatic places on the group?
From the YouTube meeting that methven and carter were on, sounds as if it was always planned to have CAST on the board and closer working ties with them.
makes sense as they’re the only ‘democratically elected’ fan group , as well as having the most members- c2400?
I have no issue with CAST having a place, I thinks its sensible but 2 on an 8 seat board?
In theory a good thing, but my inbuilt cynicism always makes me think its all lip service, PR and it never really achieves anything, happy to be proved wrong however.
These sorts of things are always going to have silly names and “mission statements”. The only real metric of success is whether it improves communication between club and fans, that’s something that’s really been missing for many years. Let’s give it a shot, and if it doesn’t work then slag it off.
I suppose it’s testament to the amount of times people have seen these things before mate. Lots of buzzwords and positive language, leading to not particularly much difference to whatever has been repackaged from before.
This advisory board was announced in January, it’s now October still looks some way off till it’s up and running. Whether it then becomes a tick box or anything meaningful, time will tell.
You’ve also got to factor that about 90% of fans don’t give a stuff about this sort of stuff
This is the point, I think, and it's perfectly reasonable that most people aren't interested in what goes on behind the scenes. However, if you go back to the 1990s fans who did care about this sort of stuff made a real difference, because the board worked very closely and genuinely with them and adopted many of their ideas, principally through Target 10,000. However, that was supported by a strong narrative and sense of direction for the club, as well as mutual respect and trust between individuals. This was achieved through real outcomes - Valley Party, VIP scheme fundraising, return to The Valley and strong growth in attendances led by fan initiatives. We are some distance from that at present.
I think structures can deliver (less keen on vision statements) but they need commitment from both sides.
Is that level of fan engagement more difficult to achieve in 2024 given the proliferation of social media? I’m guessing it was easier to “control the message” in the 1990’s whereas now every fan has an opinion which they can broadcast to world and demand instant satisfaction.
Sort of. But if you know what you're doing and have a strong message you can build a much larger movement and engage people from all over the world. The digital side of stuff is something we haven't been great at as a fanbase really. Some of the CARD stunts that have inspired other clubs to do similar would have gone massively viral if they happened today though. The funeral one would've gone mega viral worldwide I think
Especially given the very handsome coffin bearers!
What qualifies CAST to have 2 automatic places on the group?
From the YouTube meeting that methven and carter were on, sounds as if it was always planned to have CAST on the board and closer working ties with them.
makes sense as they’re the only ‘democratically elected’ fan group , as well as having the most members- c2400?
Not correct, Bromley Addicks are also democratically elected
Fair enough, but do they have a constitution etc like most Supporters Trusts? how does one go about finding it?
It is our understanding that senior staff will continue to attend the Supporter Forum meetings (formerly Fans Forum) and they will be chaired by the Fan Advocates (formerly Fan Advisors) as has been the case for the last few years.
We do not expect it to be a meeting just between Fan Representatives and the Fan Advisors. That would not be a good use of anyone's time.
So the difference would be that these meetings would be six monthly not quarterly and would alternate with the on-line fan meetings which are open to all fans,
Guys, this is all getting a bit unnecessary. For the sake of the underlying topic discussion I’ve going to remove all the offshooting exchange and ask all of you not to add any further please. If you want to continue discussion on it then please continue it elsewhere, thank you
Guys, this is all getting a bit unnecessary. For the sake of the underlying topic discussion I’ve going to remove all the offshooting exchange and ask all of you not to add any further please. If you want to continue discussion on it then please continue it elsewhere, thank you
Comments
I think structures can deliver (less keen on vision statements) but they need commitment from both sides.
Will a fan be able to ask Nathan Jones what his strategy is, why the "set piece" taker is useless or why can't the wingbacks cross the ball ? No
All a bit pointless then.
I'm not pretending it's perfect or going to make a huge difference but it's not pointless
In 65 years I have seen so many come and go……truthfully I lost track years ago.
Don’t get me wrong, I think most of them have been worthwhile projects set up by well meaning individuals but I’m not sure why they keep changing so often and exactly who is it that dreams up the next version with the sole purpose of a new name and a little bit of buzzword tweaking thrown in? 🧐
Asking "will it help us score goals?" is silly as that is not the direct aim but if it leads to better communication and so a better run club which in turn leads to more income and profit and so a bigger playing budget then it just might.
The cynical will say it is just playing lip service or it is just a talking shop. That could be true and ultimately it will succeed based on how willing the club is to listen and most importantly to act. It also needs people on the board willing to challenge and disagree in a constructive way.
It's not going to solve every problem overnight but why let perfect be the enemy of good?
It is a step in the right direction although I have some doubts on the design.
I think an advisory board should be made up of people with the right skills IE HR, finance, quality control, legal, operational, marketing, etc that make up modern companies rather than place men or women from certain organisations but the club have decided to go down that route.
I think that limits the talent pool available and one thing we should all know is to never underestimate the collective skills base of Charlton fans.
Even if you accept the benefits of having reps from CACT, CAST and the EPA I'm not sure why CACT and CAST need two each on an 8 person board or why one of the three remaining elected posts is reserved for lounge users.
In effect, that leaves just two places for the general fan base to elect which is, IMHO, too few.
I would also hope that candidates for the three elected posts have to collect 20 or so nominations from other registered fans otherwise the elections will consist of dozens of candidates and so become unworkable.
The Fans Forum or whatever it is called now is effectively dead in the water. Having no club representative at their meetings make it pointless, which seems to have been the design. Attendees are not likely to attend meetings when no one is there is listen other than a fan advisor not employed by the club. That is a shame as it closing the door on some committed people with a lot to offer as well as "eccentric" specialist areas of knowledge.
makes sense as they’re the only ‘democratically elected’ fan group , as well as having the most members- c2400?
We do not expect it to be a meeting just between Fan Representatives and the Fan Advisors. That would not be a good use of anyone's time.
So the difference would be that these meetings would be six monthly not quarterly and would alternate with the on-line fan meetings which are open to all fans,
ed. Posts edited/ removed. As you were…