[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]Legitimacy and credibility, for a start.
I wouldn't denigrate the work done by the people who make up the fans' forum, but frankly the fans should have been putting a rocket up the club's arse on a regular basis over the last couple of years. I just don't see that kind of sustained constructive criticism coming from a group that exists on the say-so of the board, however genuine the intentions of the people behind it.
The risk is that you just get more I'm-in-the-know cheerleading from fans who suddenly find themselves on nodding terms with directors - and to be clear that's not a pop at any of the current fans' forum - offset by wild personal attacks on individual directors based on no evidence at all. The latter simply enables all criticism to be dismissed as the work of "nutters".
By the way, the suggestion that the fans' impatience is unreasonable is so far from reality as to beggar belief.
So we're either arse lickers or nutters. Thanks for that Rick.
I felt we, as fans, really had a voice at the Club with the Fans Director. I've known all of them and would consider none of them to be so sycophantic as to believe everything that is told to them whilst they sit in the corner saying 'yes Mr Chairman'. You do them all an injustice - particularly as some of them are your close friends. I believe the FF are doing the best they can in a difficult environment - and again to suggest that they are there for the ride is highly insulting.
As far as those on 'the outside', I have not seen any wild personal attacks on this forum. Just concerned individuals asking sensible questions about certain executives at the Club. It is, as you put it, constructive criticism and perhaps the only way some people feel they can "put a rocket up the Club's arse" - particularly those who no longer have a close relationship with the Club other than their fortnightly visit. Half the problem is that there is no evidence, so no wonder people are trying to put 2 and 2 together to get a realistic answer. It was never like that 15 years ago.
I intend to support the idea of a ST as I feel that is a way I can effect the future of the Club - other than that I don't see what else any of us on here can do. I will continue to support the Club when I believe it is doing the right thing, but I will also continue to criticise when I see injustice.
Unless of course you have some constructive ideas...........
The FF has it's place and are doing some excellent work on fans behalf. As fans though we do need a strong independant voice to act as "guardians" of the club to ensure that things are not done which are not in the best long-term interests of the club.
As for the statement, it may be words which masks the tensions and differences which exist at a board level. It does continue to hold out the hope that matters will eventually be concluded to the long-term benefit of the club. Well we'll see when/if it goes ahead before passing judgement.
As for the comment about the protest being harmful, I absolutely agree with this. At this stage, with detailed and complex negotiations in full swing, the last thing needed is a fans revolt. The time for revolution may come, if/when a deal is or is not struck and the shape of such deal or the reason for the failure to make it happen becomes known. At the moment I put my trust in people like Peter Varney on the assuption that somebody with his love of the club is not going to associate with a consortium who do not share his desire to see the club moving forward and upward.
I think if you had a fans' director at present, who had been elected by fans, and who was party to the confidentiality by virtue of being a director, the supporters would have more reason to place their trust in the board. The fact that the fans' director could blow the whistle if necessary was the main virtue of the role, so I don't know where you get the idea I am attacking my "close friends". I doubt very much if they would think that.
My point at the other extreme is that the "nutters" reduce the credibility of the more coherent contributions on message boards. It's easy to dismiss the totality of on-line comment as the work of nutters and I've heard that said inside the club many times when views expressed online are raised as a way of dismissing them - as if the fact that the views were expressed on-line was itself a measure of them.
I like the democracy of the internet and I think if the club was sensible it would engage with it more. It's an opportunity to build a genuine community around the club and for people to feel that the club is responsive to their views. But I also think fans' views need to be organised and focussed if they are to be brought to bear in an effective way, which I think can happen through a supporters' trust.
I worked closely with Peter Varney for many years and I don't think it's indiscreet to say that he was very much of the view that there needed to be an independent group to put pressure on the club.
One of my concerns earlier this year, which is something I share with many fans on this site is that the club seemed to be in a 'downward spiral of confidence, poor results on field,in my view poor management , and a lack of a clear vision for the future was something that many fans wrote and discussed on this forum and other media forums. Quite why the management/board did not try to diffuse the situation much earlier was at best bizzare, and at times arrogant and in my opinion a diservice to the club, or what I thought was the ethos of the club, I thought we were a little better than that!.
I am in the 'confused' if not bewildered position in that I can agree with what Dave Rudd states and the 'Airman' by and large.
Having read the clubs statement I am no further enlightened than I was before.... talk about the art of saying nothing, and meaning almost anything, but do not quote me, and Oh we are fans as well, except for those dreadful types on the internet sites,....... so I guess I must be a 'nutter'.....
Interesting posts from Airman about how much more pro active supporters might have been in the recent past. The comments also serve to illustrate how message boards are perceived within the club. This site has a lot of well constructed argument and debate by people who care passionately about their club. It gives them a voice. It is true that it gives a platform for "nutters" but those comments can easily be ignored can't they? I personally think that there clearly needs to be a mind shift for some within the club on this, as this is a site that is run sensibly and responsibly by a couple of longstanding true Charlton supporters. Whether that change of attitude will happen who knows, but it strikes me that a forum like this is an excellent and "safe" way to get information out and get into constructive debate with fans about the way forward. So thanks Rick and others on here from the club who take time to talk to us, even nutters like me. :-)
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]One of my concerns earlier this year, which is something I share with many fans on this site is that the club seemed to be in a 'downward spiral of confidence, poor results on field,in my view poor management , and a lack of a clear vision for the future was something that many fans wrote and discussed on this forum and other media forums. Quite why the management/board did not try to diffuse the situation much earlier was at best bizzare, and at times arrogant and in my opinion a diservice to the club, or what I thought was the ethos of the club, I thought we were a little better than that!.
I am in the 'confused' if not bewildered position in that I can agree with what Dave Rudd states and the 'Airman' by and large.
Having read the clubs statement I am no further enlightened than I was before.... talk about the art of saying nothing, and meaning almost anything, but do not quote me, and Oh we are fans as well, except for those dreadful types on the internet sites,....... so I guess I must be a 'nutter'.....
I very much agree with this. I didn't expect the club to say anything. because this time they can't. But it's a process we've all been watching for three years now. The reality gap between the cheery self congratulatory OS news and fans experiences seems to ever widen and the club seems, at best, to be blissfully unaware. If a product I've used for years goes downhill in quality, I switch to another brand. The club is well aware that our 'brand loyalty' has endured regardless, and continues to endure, but it is severely testing the boundaries and needs to wake up. The FF seems to be part of it's complacent attitude, with what is amounting to a 'throw a few crumbs at the suckers' approach. I hope the FF will continue to probe very firmly and I hope the ST is successfully launched.
I had called for a public protest at the Ipswich friendly and believe others were of a similar mind.
I have always preferred the idea of a Supporters Director but if we had one now he would be covered by the NDA, so wouldn't be able to help. The FF have asked the questions, the Board have provided what answers they can, and we supporters must now just wait and concentrate our efforts on supporting the team and their management.
Are you the same Jblock who posted on another fans site
"Your an idiot why set up a supporters trust? You and you impatient charlton life mates need to get a grip and let the club deal with the important matters."?
Somebody that disagrees with their own viewpoint on certain issues?
As regards Fans Forum v Supporters Trust there is no reason in my view why they shouldn't exist in tandem.
One is the Board's preferred method of communicating with supporters on certain defined issues the other an independent body of supporters whose scope is as yet undefined although that may become clearer after the meeting with Supporters Direct.
I still think that we are getting ahead of ourselves a bit. The fans haven't even met yet to discuss the idea of having a Trust. Even if the meeting on Tuesday decides to progress the idea there will be a lot more work to do.
I don't see this as an either/or situation between any Trust or the Fans' Forum or indeed the Supporters' club or group.
The Fans' Forum is still, in my extremely biased opinion, a sound concept even if, just like the Supporters' Director and any Trust, it has its inherent flaws that are nothing to do with the people involved.
IMHO the FF have done well to carry on asking the questions and remind the directors of the need to address the continuing frustration of fans so I say again well done to them.
The supporters' club/groups can play a big part in bringing fans together socially and, as we have always tried to do, to get the decision makers in front of fans where they can be questioned. Remember that Derek Chappell's now infamous "judged on results" remark wasn't made on the OS but at an open, on the record meeting at Bromley Addicks.
As it happens it was the expressed frustrations of the Fans' Forum members on this board that was the final trigger in making me suggest a Trust and set up the meeting.
After that is is down to you all to make whichever option or options you choose work.
As I said I won't be heavily involved. And if you wonder why just read the above.
I'll just stay at home with my Beatles and my Stones (and Bromley Addicks)
It reads much more like an attempt to communicate and explain than the last statement which appeared to have been drafted by lawyers
I am intrigued by
"“Discussions around a proposed supporters’ trust is something that we would not have any issues with, but obviously the existing conditions referred to will change if the club comes under new ownership or acquires new investment in the future."
Now I'm going to do what I said we were all in danger of doing previously IE over studying each word to try and get some hidden meaning but
“if the club comes under new ownership or acquires new investment in the future."
this could refer to some hypothetical future or does it mean that there are two realistic options likely to come to pass in the near future. Either a total buy out or new members joining the board and making an investment?
Henry, I read “if the club comes under new ownership or acquires new investment in the future" as being a way of not giving away what the current discussions would result in if they are successful - total buyout or new members investing. That's not a criticism of the club, but maybe not giving away the nature of the deal is part of the privacy agreement.
[cite]Posted By: BBClaus[/cite]Henry, I read “if the club comes under new ownership or acquires new investment in the future" as being a way of not giving away what the current discussions would result in if they are successful - total buyout or new members investing. That's not a criticism of the club, but maybe not giving away the nature of the deal is part of the privacy agreement.
That's a good point.
As I said it's me over interpreting something most likely.
I seem to recall another club that was being bought out, (about a year ago?) where the new owners said that they would not be prepared to accept a Supporters Trust, and a condition of them proceeding with the deal was disbandment of same. Senior moment, can't remember which club, but maybe it's an oblique reference to the notion that not all buyers like the ST idea?
The Trust is not connected to the club. Even if and thats a big IF the "new people" dont want a ST whats to stop people starting one after the deal has gone through ? say the ST in a few years time has funds and make an offer to the club to "lend" these funds to the club would they say "no". How can the club stop share holders within the Trust (or outside it) banding to gether and offering proxy votes ? they cant !
Im surprised that the wording from the club seems to indicate a take over, if this goes ahead then The Board have to recomend (or not) to the Shareholders and there has to be an EAGM ( as was the case with Zeebel). If on the other hand its a buy out of some of the top players but under 39% of the total shares you dont need an EAGM. The first would take weeks if not several moneths from the Board`s recomendations the latter would be quicker.
Are you the same Jblock who posted on another fans site
"Your an idiot why set up a supporters trust? You and you impatient charlton life mates need to get a grip and let the club deal with the important matters."?
thanks for clearing that Jblock. Apologies for thinking it could have been you.
GH, correct. A Trust doesnt need any permission or approval from a club to exist although IMHO its usually better to work with rather than against when possible.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]thanks for clearing that Jblock. Apologies for thinking it could have been you.
GH, correct. A Trust doesnt need any permission or approval from a club to exist although IMHO its usually better to work with rather than against when possible.
not sure why an EGM wpuld take months. They could accept an offer for any amount of shares and then call an EGM for the next week where the transfer would be ratified.
Remember we are no longer on the stock exchange or the AIM so less strict rules.
Comments
So we're either arse lickers or nutters. Thanks for that Rick.
I felt we, as fans, really had a voice at the Club with the Fans Director. I've known all of them and would consider none of them to be so sycophantic as to believe everything that is told to them whilst they sit in the corner saying 'yes Mr Chairman'. You do them all an injustice - particularly as some of them are your close friends. I believe the FF are doing the best they can in a difficult environment - and again to suggest that they are there for the ride is highly insulting.
As far as those on 'the outside', I have not seen any wild personal attacks on this forum. Just concerned individuals asking sensible questions about certain executives at the Club. It is, as you put it, constructive criticism and perhaps the only way some people feel they can "put a rocket up the Club's arse" - particularly those who no longer have a close relationship with the Club other than their fortnightly visit. Half the problem is that there is no evidence, so no wonder people are trying to put 2 and 2 together to get a realistic answer. It was never like that 15 years ago.
I intend to support the idea of a ST as I feel that is a way I can effect the future of the Club - other than that I don't see what else any of us on here can do. I will continue to support the Club when I believe it is doing the right thing, but I will also continue to criticise when I see injustice.
Unless of course you have some constructive ideas...........
As for the statement, it may be words which masks the tensions and differences which exist at a board level. It does continue to hold out the hope that matters will eventually be concluded to the long-term benefit of the club. Well we'll see when/if it goes ahead before passing judgement.
As for the comment about the protest being harmful, I absolutely agree with this. At this stage, with detailed and complex negotiations in full swing, the last thing needed is a fans revolt. The time for revolution may come, if/when a deal is or is not struck and the shape of such deal or the reason for the failure to make it happen becomes known. At the moment I put my trust in people like Peter Varney on the assuption that somebody with his love of the club is not going to associate with a consortium who do not share his desire to see the club moving forward and upward.
My point at the other extreme is that the "nutters" reduce the credibility of the more coherent contributions on message boards. It's easy to dismiss the totality of on-line comment as the work of nutters and I've heard that said inside the club many times when views expressed online are raised as a way of dismissing them - as if the fact that the views were expressed on-line was itself a measure of them.
I like the democracy of the internet and I think if the club was sensible it would engage with it more. It's an opportunity to build a genuine community around the club and for people to feel that the club is responsive to their views. But I also think fans' views need to be organised and focussed if they are to be brought to bear in an effective way, which I think can happen through a supporters' trust.
I worked closely with Peter Varney for many years and I don't think it's indiscreet to say that he was very much of the view that there needed to be an independent group to put pressure on the club.
I am in the 'confused' if not bewildered position in that I can agree with what Dave Rudd states and the 'Airman' by and large.
Having read the clubs statement I am no further enlightened than I was before.... talk about the art of saying nothing, and meaning almost anything, but do not quote me, and Oh we are fans as well, except for those dreadful types on the internet sites,....... so I guess I must be a 'nutter'.....
asking them questions and receiving reponses like this is pointless.
Can I ask what the 'public protest' mentioned in the statement is?
Club - thanks for replying
Outcome - none the wiser
oh well.
I personally think that there clearly needs to be a mind shift for some within the club on this, as this is a site that is run sensibly and responsibly by a couple of longstanding true Charlton supporters.
Whether that change of attitude will happen who knows, but it strikes me that a forum like this is an excellent and "safe" way to get information out and get into constructive debate with fans about the way forward.
So thanks Rick and others on here from the club who take time to talk to us, even nutters like me. :-)
I very much agree with this. I didn't expect the club to say anything. because this time they can't. But it's a process we've all been watching for three years now. The reality gap between the cheery self congratulatory OS news and fans experiences seems to ever widen and the club seems, at best, to be blissfully unaware. If a product I've used for years goes downhill in quality, I switch to another brand. The club is well aware that our 'brand loyalty' has endured regardless, and continues to endure, but it is severely testing the boundaries and needs to wake up. The FF seems to be part of it's complacent attitude, with what is amounting to a 'throw a few crumbs at the suckers' approach. I hope the FF will continue to probe very firmly and I hope the ST is successfully launched.
I have always preferred the idea of a Supporters Director but if we had one now he would be covered by the NDA, so wouldn't be able to help. The FF have asked the questions, the Board have provided what answers they can, and we supporters must now just wait and concentrate our efforts on supporting the team and their management.
Are you the same Jblock who posted on another fans site
"Your an idiot why set up a supporters trust? You and you impatient charlton life mates need to get a grip and let the club deal with the important matters."?
Just asking for clarification
Somebody that disagrees with their own viewpoint on certain issues?
As regards Fans Forum v Supporters Trust there is no reason in my view why they shouldn't exist in tandem.
One is the Board's preferred method of communicating with supporters on certain defined issues the other an independent body of supporters whose scope is as yet undefined although that may become clearer after the meeting with Supporters Direct.
I don't see this as an either/or situation between any Trust or the Fans' Forum or indeed the Supporters' club or group.
The Fans' Forum is still, in my extremely biased opinion, a sound concept even if, just like the Supporters' Director and any Trust, it has its inherent flaws that are nothing to do with the people involved.
IMHO the FF have done well to carry on asking the questions and remind the directors of the need to address the continuing frustration of fans so I say again well done to them.
The supporters' club/groups can play a big part in bringing fans together socially and, as we have always tried to do, to get the decision makers in front of fans where they can be questioned. Remember that Derek Chappell's now infamous "judged on results" remark wasn't made on the OS but at an open, on the record meeting at Bromley Addicks.
As it happens it was the expressed frustrations of the Fans' Forum members on this board that was the final trigger in making me suggest a Trust and set up the meeting.
After that is is down to you all to make whichever option or options you choose work.
As I said I won't be heavily involved. And if you wonder why just read the above.
I'll just stay at home with my Beatles and my Stones (and Bromley Addicks)
It reads much more like an attempt to communicate and explain than the last statement which appeared to have been drafted by lawyers
I am intrigued by
"“Discussions around a proposed supporters’ trust is something that we would not have any issues with, but obviously the existing conditions referred to will change if the club comes under new ownership or acquires new investment in the future."
Now I'm going to do what I said we were all in danger of doing previously IE over studying each word to try and get some hidden meaning but
“if the club comes under new ownership or acquires new investment in the future."
this could refer to some hypothetical future or does it mean that there are two realistic options likely to come to pass in the near future. Either a total buy out or new members joining the board and making an investment?
That's a good point.
As I said it's me over interpreting something most likely.
Could well be but a bridge I think any Trust should cross when it comes to it.
It is comforting to know that the outcome could still be positive and things are not dead in the water.
Yet more patience required.
Im surprised that the wording from the club seems to indicate a take over, if this goes ahead then The Board have to recomend (or not) to the Shareholders and there has to be an EAGM ( as was the case with Zeebel). If on the other hand its a buy out of some of the top players but under 39% of the total shares you dont need an EAGM. The first would take weeks if not several moneths from the Board`s recomendations the latter would be quicker.
No not me.
GH, correct. A Trust doesnt need any permission or approval from a club to exist although IMHO its usually better to work with rather than against when possible.
Remember we are no longer on the stock exchange or the AIM so less strict rules.