As I understand the "reps" are representatives from diffrent "fan groups" who willingly voluntary their time and effort to attend these meetings. If that's not correct can someone correct me?
How many members does each rep represent?
Are you trusted to represent your members best interests or do you ask questions on their behalf? Or a bit of both?
I ask these question both out of curiosity but also to those that say the meetings are a waste of time, they should be boycotted etc, do you have a rep and have you told them you don't wish them to attend?
Anyone care to answer?
CAST (Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust) attends the FF. We represent 1100 members.
I We survey members on a number of different matters twice a year to ensure that we are in touch with their thinking. (Non members also respond to our survey and there is usually very little difference in their response)
Our last survey revealed that 93% of respondents thought it was important that we continued to engage with the club by attending the FF.
So your membership is about 10% of the season tickets the club claim to have sold and less than 3% of the people at Wembley?
How many people replied to your survey?
I am not "digging out" anyone for anything, I am just questioning the data gathering.
Isn't it an echo chamber? As an example Charlton life is a good cross section of fans, but it isn't representative of the whole fan base. It's representative of the most engaged fans, not the more passive ones.
If you can be arsed to log on to a forum, read comments and then post yourself, you obviously have an opinion. How many people don't do the first, do the first and not the second, the second not the third etc
You might equally ask why the people who only turned up at Wembley should have any say at all. Or whether the people who are "only interested in the football", whatever that means, even want a say.
It means the "majority" of fans that go to the game with friends and family on a Saturday. Maybe make a day of it. They might check the score of an away game at about 6pm the following Saturday. They don't go on the Internet/social media to talk about Charlton or football in general.
All they care about the performance on the pitch, they couldn't give a flying hoot who the ceo, cfo, dof or uncle Tom cobbly is.
And you know this how?
Did you do a survey?
How big is this Majority?
Do they all wait to 6.00pm or do some check earlier?
Did you just make that all up?
Because it's the same as any other hobby. There are many levels of involvement. You know this as I would imagine you have other, non Charlton related hobbies?
This is an internet forum about a hobby, in essence. We are invested in this hobby to the extent that we sign up to a forum to discuss, stroll through pages of drival on the take over thread. Some of us are members of groups that meet up and discuss the goings on, some of us organise said groups, some of us don't.
Some of us would, or have, choose Charlton over partners. To others its not the most important thing in their life, maybe not even there main hobby.
But the point I am making is this tiny subsection of fans isn't a reflection of the majority of fans only the more engaged and fanatical. That's why it is an echo chamber.
No, that wasn't the point you were making at all. You never mentioned any "levels of involvement" just a mythical 6 o'clock majority.
You've now moved to another point which essentially a forum with 20k+ members is "tiny" and isn't a reflection of the "majority of fans". Again you claim to know how this "majority" thinks with absolutely nothing to back that up.
If YOU have an opinion, own it and express it. Don't claim that YOUR opinion is shared with others without evidence or the reverse that others' opinions are invalid as they aren't held by a made up "majority".
If you read my posts on other threeds you will will see that I care about the way the club is run. I said the protests should never have stopped. I am saying MY opinions AREN'T shared by the the majority.
I am saying I AM overly involved on an emotional level. If MY opinion was shared by the majority there would have still been protests.
Either way you are why keep going on about a made up majority.
Not protesting and not caring beyond the "results on the pitch" are not the same thing or mutually exclusive
Sorry the first time, I think, I used the word majority was when Airman questioned what "only care about the football" ment.
I stand by MY opionon that most people who go to Charlton games care more about the results on the pitch than anything else. Almost anything else is irrelevant, to them, if the on pitch performances are good. That is not an opionon I share but I believe it to be true. Maybe I should have said this 2 days ago.
Now you've changed your opinion again.
You are now saying most people who go to Charlton care MORE about the results than anything else.
That is hardly a surprise.
I'd think that would apply at just about every club, everywhere. It applies to me.
That almost anything else is irrelevant to most fans is not true, in my opinion.
A lot of people care about who the manager is, the image of the club, the style of football that is played, where it is played, what kit we wear, who the players are, what the club does in the community, internationals who play for the club, former players, the history of the club, ticket prices, away followings, the academy and youth teams, I could go on and on. Each person will care more or less about each of these as each person is different.
Some even care about who the owners are and the governance, especially when things are going badly, less so when it's going well but many care about these things because they realise that ownership impacts on the results.
You're are right, though, you should just have said that two days ago.
I haven't changed my opinion, I changed MAJORITY to MOST. You left out the bit where I said if performances are good everything else is irrelevant. That doesn't doesn't apply to me, or you.
But generally we are now arguing over syntax so I think we should leave it there.
No, you changed from don't care about anything other than results to care more about results. Huge difference.
I said
"I stand by MY opionon that most people who go to Charlton games care more about the results on the pitch than anything else. Almost anything else is irrelevant, to them, if the on pitch performances are good."
As I understand the "reps" are representatives from diffrent "fan groups" who willingly voluntary their time and effort to attend these meetings. If that's not correct can someone correct me?
How many members does each rep represent?
Are you trusted to represent your members best interests or do you ask questions on their behalf? Or a bit of both?
I ask these question both out of curiosity but also to those that say the meetings are a waste of time, they should be boycotted etc, do you have a rep and have you told them you don't wish them to attend?
Anyone care to answer?
CAST (Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust) attends the FF. We represent 1100 members.
I We survey members on a number of different matters twice a year to ensure that we are in touch with their thinking. (Non members also respond to our survey and there is usually very little difference in their response)
Our last survey revealed that 93% of respondents thought it was important that we continued to engage with the club by attending the FF.
So your membership is about 10% of the season tickets the club claim to have sold and less than 3% of the people at Wembley?
How many people replied to your survey?
I am not "digging out" anyone for anything, I am just questioning the data gathering.
Isn't it an echo chamber? As an example Charlton life is a good cross section of fans, but it isn't representative of the whole fan base. It's representative of the most engaged fans, not the more passive ones.
If you can be arsed to log on to a forum, read comments and then post yourself, you obviously have an opinion. How many people don't do the first, do the first and not the second, the second not the third etc
You might equally ask why the people who only turned up at Wembley should have any say at all. Or whether the people who are "only interested in the football", whatever that means, even want a say.
It means the "majority" of fans that go to the game with friends and family on a Saturday. Maybe make a day of it. They might check the score of an away game at about 6pm the following Saturday. They don't go on the Internet/social media to talk about Charlton or football in general.
All they care about the performance on the pitch, they couldn't give a flying hoot who the ceo, cfo, dof or uncle Tom cobbly is.
And you know this how?
Did you do a survey?
How big is this Majority?
Do they all wait to 6.00pm or do some check earlier?
Did you just make that all up?
Because it's the same as any other hobby. There are many levels of involvement. You know this as I would imagine you have other, non Charlton related hobbies?
This is an internet forum about a hobby, in essence. We are invested in this hobby to the extent that we sign up to a forum to discuss, stroll through pages of drival on the take over thread. Some of us are members of groups that meet up and discuss the goings on, some of us organise said groups, some of us don't.
Some of us would, or have, choose Charlton over partners. To others its not the most important thing in their life, maybe not even there main hobby.
But the point I am making is this tiny subsection of fans isn't a reflection of the majority of fans only the more engaged and fanatical. That's why it is an echo chamber.
No, that wasn't the point you were making at all. You never mentioned any "levels of involvement" just a mythical 6 o'clock majority.
You've now moved to another point which essentially a forum with 20k+ members is "tiny" and isn't a reflection of the "majority of fans". Again you claim to know how this "majority" thinks with absolutely nothing to back that up.
If YOU have an opinion, own it and express it. Don't claim that YOUR opinion is shared with others without evidence or the reverse that others' opinions are invalid as they aren't held by a made up "majority".
If you read my posts on other threeds you will will see that I care about the way the club is run. I said the protests should never have stopped. I am saying MY opinions AREN'T shared by the the majority.
I am saying I AM overly involved on an emotional level. If MY opinion was shared by the majority there would have still been protests.
Either way you are why keep going on about a made up majority.
Not protesting and not caring beyond the "results on the pitch" are not the same thing or mutually exclusive
Sorry the first time, I think, I used the word majority was when Airman questioned what "only care about the football" ment.
I stand by MY opionon that most people who go to Charlton games care more about the results on the pitch than anything else. Almost anything else is irrelevant, to them, if the on pitch performances are good. That is not an opionon I share but I believe it to be true. Maybe I should have said this 2 days ago.
Now you've changed your opinion again.
You are now saying most people who go to Charlton care MORE about the results than anything else.
That is hardly a surprise.
I'd think that would apply at just about every club, everywhere. It applies to me.
That almost anything else is irrelevant to most fans is not true, in my opinion.
A lot of people care about who the manager is, the image of the club, the style of football that is played, where it is played, what kit we wear, who the players are, what the club does in the community, internationals who play for the club, former players, the history of the club, ticket prices, away followings, the academy and youth teams, I could go on and on. Each person will care more or less about each of these as each person is different.
Some even care about who the owners are and the governance, especially when things are going badly, less so when it's going well but many care about these things because they realise that ownership impacts on the results.
You're are right, though, you should just have said that two days ago.
I haven't changed my opinion, I changed MAJORITY to MOST. You left out the bit where I said if performances are good everything else is irrelevant. That doesn't doesn't apply to me, or you.
But generally we are now arguing over syntax so I think we should leave it there.
No, you changed from don't care about anything other than results to care more about results. Huge difference.
I said
"I stand by MY opionon that most people who go to Charlton games care more about the results on the pitch than anything else. Almost anything else is irrelevant, to them, if the on pitch performances are good."
Huge difference
No, that's what you're saying NOW.
it's not what you were saying originally
If your referring to
"All they care about the performance on the pitch, they couldn't give a flying hoot who the ceo, cfo, dof or uncle Tom cobbly is"
I stand by that, the only reason they ever care is when the team aren't performing and need someone to blame. I didn't know who the CFO was until it was announced he was leaving. If you don't agree that's fine. For the final time:
MOST FANS DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE IF THE PERFORMANCE ON THE PITCH IS EXEPTABLE.
Is it just me or is one of those ‘answers’ not an answer to one of the questions?
No mate it's not you here's my concurrent post on the Takeover thread;
Reads to me as if LDT has just cut and pasted a lawyers opinion on the debentures which more often than not will cover all bases without there being a totally clear position on the repayment terms. And it's likely these will only be finally agreed upon when the contingent liability becomes due.
At least he has admitted the rat didn't have a clue as to their significance when he bought the club.
The written answers offered to the questions raised in the last Fans Forum about the potential takeover are, to no one's surprise, unsatisfactory. They leave a lot unanswered and they are, of course, much easier for LdT to hide behind than having to field supplementary questions during a face-to-face meeting.
Is Charlton a more sellable club now it is in the Championship?
Disregarding the self-justificatory remarks from the third line downward ("Some fans question why the owner is very transparent regarding not only the positive, but also the negative points of owning the club"), this is accepted, although it is asserted that "many other Championship clubs are for sale as well". So what ?
It has been previously said the former directors’ loans are not an issue, now it appears they are an issue. Has
this changed? If so, why?
The question is not directly addressed, although it is said that there are two debates regarding the directors' loans:
1. Does the loan repayment expire?
It is clear that the clauses quoted and the assertions made in Duchatelet's answers are designed to support a case that the obligation to repay the directors' loan could be somehow time barred or time limited. It is difficult to express a meaningful view without seeing the agreement(s) and the deed(s) of amendment in their entirety, as individual provisions need to be construed in the context of both a contract or deed as a whole, rather than in isolation. Consideration also needs to be given to the factual and commercial context.
Whilst the drafting of the clauses, as quoted, could certainly have been clearer, Duchatelet's argument seems to rely upon a very strained construction, having regard to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words. If a time limitation or 'longstop' date was intended, why did the parties not say so in plain terms ? His contention also flies in the face of commercial common sense, given that the directors were agreeing to defer - interest free - repayment of their £7million loans pending the team's promotion to the Premier League. Given their considerable forbearance - and the fact that the team was in League 1 in 2010 - why would a time limit have been imposed on the obligation to repay them ?
If the interpretation of the agreement and deeds is a real sticking point, the parties could jointly instruct a QC for an opinion, either to inform their respective thinking and approach or to be bound by the result (with, if necessary, the costs to be borne by the 'unsuccessful' party). That would, at least, achieve certainty and finality on the issue, although Duchatelet will probably prefer to persist in his efforts to try and squeeze the former directors into a discount and have any purchaser fund - in whole or in part - that repayment. Given the way in which his arguments are articulated, would he and his advisers really be able and willing to engage in a constructive approach to resolving the issue ?
2. Assuming that the conditional loan is eternal, is the club obliged to have ex-directors’ consent for
anything?
The first sentence looks like a clumsy attempt to half point the finger of blame at certain former directors for being obstructive, although quite what is meant by their "object[ing] to assets within the BATON Ltd holding to be moved or reorganised" is unclear. What follows suggests a lack of due diligence at the time of Duchatelet's acquisition, plus a misguided attempt to bolster his arguments vis-a-vis the directors by referring to Jiminez's speculative proposal to move Charlton to the O2 - hardly the most persuasive of evidence...
The last two sentences do concern me, as they suggest that Duchatelet is interested in retaining the Valley and Sparrow's Lane, which would be an utter disaster.
"Candidate buyers may want to buy the club without the land and buildings. This option would keep land and
buildings out of the hands of banks if a new owner/owners are unable to provide the revenue needed to
survive."
It was previously stated the price of the club would not change with promotion? Has this now changed?
The first sentence is telling and suggests that Duchatelet may be seeking a different price from different buyers and is prepared to move the goalposts.
"The price, which was agreed initially with the parties looking to acquire the club more than a year ago is still
the price at which the owner is willing to sell to them, even though the club is now in the Championship." (my emphasis).
Did the Australian consortium agree, subject to contract, an inflated price last year and that is Duchatelet's justification for his more recent demands ?
The overall impression, looking at this latest response, is one of a total mess - compounded by a muddled and inconsistent approach on the part of Duchatelet. It is hardly surprising if Dalman has, as reported, decided to walk away.
Does this now override the statement that was put out here? https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/5d13da51e7567/update-from-last-nights-fans-forum ‘A takeover specific Fans’ Forum will take place ahead of the start of the season should the club not be sold by then.’ *cue the web page disappearing as soon as this gets seen by someone at the club*
Does this now override the statement that was put out here? https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/5d13da51e7567/update-from-last-nights-fans-forum ‘A takeover specific Fans’ Forum will take place ahead of the start of the season should the club not be sold by then.’ *cue the web page disappearing as soon as this gets seen by someone at the club*
Comments
it's not what you were saying originally
"All they care about the performance on the pitch, they couldn't give a flying hoot who the ceo, cfo, dof or uncle Tom cobbly is"
I stand by that, the only reason they ever care is when the team aren't performing and need someone to blame. I didn't know who the CFO was until it was announced he was leaving. If you don't agree that's fine. For the final time:
MOST FANS DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE IF THE PERFORMANCE ON THE PITCH IS EXEPTABLE.
I am not one of "most" but my opinion stands.
Reads to me as if LDT has just cut and pasted a lawyers opinion on the debentures which more often than not will cover all bases without there being a totally clear position on the repayment terms. And it's likely these will only be finally agreed upon when the contingent liability becomes due.
At least he has admitted the rat didn't have a clue as to their significance when he bought the club.
Meanwhile:
The next Fans' Forum takes place at The Valley on September 25th. The Fans' Forum would like to invite two inidividual supporters, who don't normally attend, to come to the meeting. If you would like to attend please email fans@cafc.co.uk.
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/5d1e1ba8e608c/fans-forum-notes-june-2019
That'll do the trick.
My screen scrolling through this thread on my phone.
Seems more 50 shades of grey than people debating about who said what.
Is Charlton a more sellable club now it is in the Championship?
Disregarding the self-justificatory remarks from the third line downward ("Some fans question why the owner is very transparent regarding not only the positive, but also the negative points of owning the club"), this is accepted, although it is asserted that "many other Championship clubs are for sale as well". So what ?
It has been previously said the former directors’ loans are not an issue, now it appears they are an issue. Has this changed? If so, why?
The question is not directly addressed, although it is said that there are two debates regarding the directors' loans:
1. Does the loan repayment expire?
It is clear that the clauses quoted and the assertions made in Duchatelet's answers are designed to support a case that the obligation to repay the directors' loan could be somehow time barred or time limited. It is difficult to express a meaningful view without seeing the agreement(s) and the deed(s) of amendment in their entirety, as individual provisions need to be construed in the context of both a contract or deed as a whole, rather than in isolation. Consideration also needs to be given to the factual and commercial context.
Whilst the drafting of the clauses, as quoted, could certainly have been clearer, Duchatelet's argument seems to rely upon a very strained construction, having regard to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words. If a time limitation or 'longstop' date was intended, why did the parties not say so in plain terms ? His contention also flies in the face of commercial common sense, given that the directors were agreeing to defer - interest free - repayment of their £7million loans pending the team's promotion to the Premier League. Given their considerable forbearance - and the fact that the team was in League 1 in 2010 - why would a time limit have been imposed on the obligation to repay them ?
If the interpretation of the agreement and deeds is a real sticking point, the parties could jointly instruct a QC for an opinion, either to inform their respective thinking and approach or to be bound by the result (with, if necessary, the costs to be borne by the 'unsuccessful' party). That would, at least, achieve certainty and finality on the issue, although Duchatelet will probably prefer to persist in his efforts to try and squeeze the former directors into a discount and have any purchaser fund - in whole or in part - that repayment. Given the way in which his arguments are articulated, would he and his advisers really be able and willing to engage in a constructive approach to resolving the issue ?
2. Assuming that the conditional loan is eternal, is the club obliged to have ex-directors’ consent for
The first sentence looks like a clumsy attempt to half point the finger of blame at certain former directors for being obstructive, although quite what is meant by their "object[ing] to assets within the BATON Ltd holding to be moved or reorganised" is unclear. What follows suggests a lack of due diligence at the time of Duchatelet's acquisition, plus a misguided attempt to bolster his arguments vis-a-vis the directors by referring to Jiminez's speculative proposal to move Charlton to the O2 - hardly the most persuasive of evidence...
The last two sentences do concern me, as they suggest that Duchatelet is interested in retaining the Valley and Sparrow's Lane, which would be an utter disaster.
"Candidate buyers may want to buy the club without the land and buildings. This option would keep land and
The first sentence is telling and suggests that Duchatelet may be seeking a different price from different buyers and is prepared to move the goalposts.
Did the Australian consortium agree, subject to contract, an inflated price last year and that is Duchatelet's justification for his more recent demands ?
The overall impression, looking at this latest response, is one of a total mess - compounded by a muddled and inconsistent approach on the part of Duchatelet. It is hardly surprising if Dalman has, as reported, decided to walk away.
Good points, well made.
Again shows that while frustrating the answers were worth getting, even if just to show the stupidity of RD and the incompetence of De Turck.
Well done the Fans' Forum
‘A takeover specific Fans’ Forum will take place ahead of the start of the season should the club not be sold by then.’
*cue the web page disappearing as soon as this gets seen by someone at the club*
I’m guessing there’s only half a dozen or so organised groups. So it’ll be very cosy.
Southampton have a live event on Solent Radio. Which is open, potentially, to all their interested fans.