as I understand it he did that. They asked him to serve another two years but he declined as he didn't think it right as he hadn't been re-elected by those he represented. They didn't seem keen to run another election for whatever reason. He suggested a FF which exists to this day having replaced the elected SD. Can't see much else he could have done really.
Can I ask barnie that if anyone else dared to critise the trust that they would not be subject to a personal attack? I am saying this as HI has made a comment about an article written by the trust in which he believes has been edited by the club. The answer given by the trust was deemed unsatifactory by HI and he raised another point. This in my opinion is acceptable. What I do not find acceptable is a board member of the trust getting personal to people who have raised a valid argument. I, as a paid member of the trust thinks that this sort of behavour from a board member is unprofessional and could deter future people from not only joining the trust but also from engaging in it.
I can promise you that a game of Chinese whispers has turned in to a tornado of hearsay.
The club has categorically not rewritten any Trust articles.
Every person who has paid their £5 subscription to the Trust effectively owns an equal percentage. The Trust isn't one person, we are all Charlton and fundamentally we all strive to achieve the same thing. A time will come when the fans really need the trust and what will be left?
Fellow supporters, this is an important time for Charlton, let's make sure the future is painted red and white.
So, on that basis, if you haven't joined the Trust, does that mean you are NOT a supporter?
Because I'm pretty sure there are more season ticket holders than Trust members.
This post highlights a lot of what is wrong with this site and this thread in particular. It is very very clearly evident that this has not been said or even implied in the post and the only reason to respond with a comment like that is to create tension, cause offense and create drama which isn't there.
I am really glad the ST did not rise to the bait.
And I post this as someone who is very much a fan, not a member of the ST, someone who has criticised the ST and once criticised the SD.
That leads me on to defend the ST in general. I have been very critical of them at times, ambivalent at others and still not signed up. I have always found that Razil has taken my comments on board when he could dismiss them as I am not a member and has never taken or given offense. Which, as it happens, is a very different response to the one I got from the SD where I dared to criticise that person's undertaking of their role.
cafc999, I think it has become obvious that the 2 people involved have chosen not to participate any further in what many regard as an unhelpful squabble. It does not reflect well on you that you seem unwilling to let it die. I do know that Razil has taken notice of what people have said but I also know that right now he's up to his ears in other Trust stuff. Greenwich Borough Council is acting very oddly, now there's an issue that does need heavy probing.
Can I ask barnie that if anyone else dared to critise the trust that they would not be subject to a personal attack? I am saying this as HI has made a comment about an article written by the trust in which he believes has been edited by the club. The answer given by the trust was deemed unsatifactory by HI and he raised another point. This in my opinion is acceptable. What I do not find acceptable is a board member of the trust getting personal to people who have raised a valid argument. I, as a paid member of the trust thinks that this sort of behavour from a board member is unprofessional and could deter future people from not only joining the trust but also from engaging in it.
Don't you think there is a kind of snide personalisation when HI says the Trust activists 'suffer' from 'groupthink'?
I do.
I have been active trying to help out with bits and pieces of the Trust, but the suggestion by HI is that I don't know my own mind, and am not able to hold individual views.
For HI to lump us all together as some kind of mindless automatons controlled in some sinister way by Dr Evil is a pretty personal attack in my view, and it is graceless and snide to do so.
Greenwich Borough Council is acting very oddly, now there's an issue that does need heavy probing.
care to enlighten us?
It's in the latest Trust newletter Large. The ACV should have been done and dusted by now but GBC are way past their deadline. That of itself isn't unusual for GBC but even getting someone to explain on the phone is impossible and the local Cllr seems to have been fed a load of meaningless waffle, so what is going on and why?
I don't see it as 'snide' at all Seth. He is the outsider on this and as a result is having his view challenged by around a dozen connected people. The fact some others agreed with him is testament to (whether you agree or disagree) the fact he may have raised a point worth debating.
The fact he was seen by the 'group' as a bad egg and troublemaker completely influenced the response and went completely down the wrong route. I tried to subtly warn all involved at the beginning they probably won't end up doing themselves any favours, but it will always be the case with some that they will always see the other person as being in the wrong.
I don't see it as 'snide' at all Seth. He is the outsider on this and as a result is having his view challenged by around a dozen connected people. The fact some others agreed with him is testament to (whether you agree or disagree) the fact he may have raised a point worth debating.
The fact he was seen by the 'group' as a bad egg and troublemaker completely influenced the response and went completely down the wrong route. I tried to subtly warn all involved at the beginning they probably won't end up doing themselves any favours, but it will always be the case with some that they will always see the other person as being in the wrong.
Silly
It is a silly mess but persisting in using the word 'veto' when repeatedly told that was not the case was unhelpful and antagonistic and that fact seems to be conveniently ignored by some when criticising the responses from the Trust Officers.
I speak purely as an ordinary Trust member, who knows and likes Henry, but who has also read this thread in full.
The Supporters Director. The starting point was the five year season tickets we were urged to buy, to get together enough money to heave us across the last hurdle in returning to the Valley. As a supporters club activist at the time I was one of about 10 people present at the Meridian listening to Martin Simons and Richard Murray. They proposed the director position in recognition that the 5 year season ticket holders would then be a group of financial stakeholders, like the other directors were. There are maybe one or two others who post on Charlton Life who were present at that meeting too. I don't think it was proposed as a PR move, but a serious recognition that if a group of supporters supplied up front wedge at the time, then they deserve a place at the table. Richard Murray said at that meeting that the supporters director would have equal standing to the other directors, and that he would hope to achieve friendly consensus on all matters. Subsequently 'directors confidentiality' became something the supporters director had to go along with too. It didn't seem a problem that firstly Steve Clarke, Craig Norris, and Wendy et al, all the way to HI would honour such confidentiality. So HI in his role would have self vetoed, letting some information out keeping some information back, what he exposed would to some extent be 'edited' by the forces in the club, the regime at the time. So if the supporters directors modified things and showed restraint (including HI), isn't it kind of hypocritical for the Trust to be vilified for showing tact and restraint too by a person who used to do the self same thing?
Can I ask barnie that if anyone else dared to critise the trust that they would not be subject to a personal attack? I am saying this as HI has made a comment about an article written by the trust in which he believes has been edited by the club. The answer given by the trust was deemed unsatifactory by HI and he raised another point. This in my opinion is acceptable. What I do not find acceptable is a board member of the trust getting personal to people who have raised a valid argument. I, as a paid member of the trust thinks that this sort of behavour from a board member is unprofessional and could deter future people from not only joining the trust but also from engaging in it.
Don't you think there is a kind of snide personalisation when HI says the Trust activists 'suffer' from 'groupthink'?
I do.
I have been active trying to help out with bits and pieces of the Trust, but the suggestion by HI is that I don't know my own mind, and am not able to hold individual views.
For HI to lump us all together as some kind of mindless automatons controlled in some sinister way by Dr Evil is a pretty personal attack in my view, and it is graceless and snide to do so.
I think there have been unhelpful comments on both sides of this particular discussion. We're kind of in a 'he started it' place, which isn't constructive to the arguments on offer.
I don't think the Trust suffer from 'groupthink', but I hope they are united in vision and purpose. I don't read in this thread that the club were offered a veto or a subeditor role on Trust articles, either. Personally I thought the final article lacked the promised punch, but then I think that's best left to VOTV anyway.
I share concerns and have expressed my own thoughts regarding the demise of the SD role, but we are where we are and whilst I understand what prompted the initial comment perhaps this is not a constructive avenue to pursue any further. I'm going to back off of this now.
If the Trust can get themselves into a position of insight and encourage the club to greater openness we will all benefit. This will require a compromise and a level of promotion that won't be palatable to all of us at the off, but we should consider the longer term vision and good. It's not going to get into the position I'm sure we all want it to be in without our forbearance, support and encouragement as it finds its feet. And indeed our criticism, constructively offered.
Seth...small point, but when we returned to The Valley, it was a 10 year season ticket that I signed up to, not 5. With a year left, the Club then introduced a 5 year ticket so I, and I assume others, then moved on to a 4 year version.
Seth...small point, but when we returned to The Valley, it was a 10 year season ticket that I signed up to, not 5. With a year left, the Club then introduced a 5 year ticket so I, and I assume others, then moved on to a 4 year version.
Yeah you're right, and I should know too 'cos I bought one!
cafc999, I think it has become obvious that the 2 people involved have chosen not to participate any further in what many regard as an unhelpful squabble. It does not reflect well on you that you seem unwilling to let it die. I do know that Razil has taken notice of what people have said but I also know that right now he's up to his ears in other Trust stuff. Greenwich Borough Council is acting very oddly, now there's an issue that does need heavy probing.
I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say stilladdicted. I am just trying to say that I would expect better from a board member of a trust. How does anyone know that if they speak up that thay wouldn't get a personal attack back? I am not implying that barnie is that type of character. However, please ask yourself this question. If you didn't know who barnie is and all you had to go one was his responses to HI questions, how would you view him??
For the record, having read all of the posts i have my own thoughts. If I wish to air these views then I will speak to both parties in private and not on a public forum.
Releasing privileged inside information being discussed at a Board Meeting and writing an article from outside looking in are completely different.
Disagree Addickted.
In forming a relationship with the regime, and then exercising tact and restraint, either from the point of view of our supporters director, or our supporters trust, are completely the same.
cafc999, I think it has become obvious that the 2 people involved have chosen not to participate any further in what many regard as an unhelpful squabble. It does not reflect well on you that you seem unwilling to let it die. I do know that Razil has taken notice of what people have said but I also know that right now he's up to his ears in other Trust stuff. Greenwich Borough Council is acting very oddly, now there's an issue that does need heavy probing.
If you didn't know who barnie is and all you had to go one was his responses to HI questions, how would you view him??
ofFENCEive
lol (old skool CL)
Come on guys, lets lighten up, leave it and all move on.
I'm sure there's loads of things here for everyone to learn, but its a molehill that should not be viewed or turned into a mountain.
Agree totally with Rikofold. I don't think it's helpful to dissect this thread or what happened at the dissolution of the SD role.
As far as I can see both HI and Razil are dedicated supporters of this club to the point where both have been, or are currently, prepared to dedicate the time and energy to it that few of us could be bothered with. The fact that they've had a bit of a spat on here is unfortunate but doesn't really change anything. It would be better if the few of our fans that had the knowledge, experience and dedication to actually make a difference to the club were presenting a united front but by the same token a bit of healthy debate and a watching brief between them might not be such a bad thing either. It was unfortunate that it became a bit personal but much as you try, sometimes, especially when you're working your arse off for something that you believe in, it can be hard to depersonalise criticism and I think internet forums and any remote communication really offer ample opportunities for things to spiral when they needn't have.
I personally think it'd be good if we could move on from it now and let them get back to the more important matters at hand.
Comments
I am really glad the ST did not rise to the bait.
And I post this as someone who is very much a fan, not a member of the ST, someone who has criticised the ST and once criticised the SD.
That leads me on to defend the ST in general. I have been very critical of them at times, ambivalent at others and still not signed up. I have always found that Razil has taken my comments on board when he could dismiss them as I am not a member and has never taken or given offense. Which, as it happens, is a very different response to the one I got from the SD where I dared to criticise that person's undertaking of their role.
I do.
I have been active trying to help out with bits and pieces of the Trust, but the suggestion by HI is that I don't know my own mind, and am not able to hold individual views.
For HI to lump us all together as some kind of mindless automatons controlled in some sinister way by Dr Evil is a pretty personal attack in my view, and it is graceless and snide to do so.
May well refer to page 6 of this thread.
In short Greenwich have taken nearly twice as long and counting as other authorities handling ACVs it seems.
The fact he was seen by the 'group' as a bad egg and troublemaker completely influenced the response and went completely down the wrong route. I tried to subtly warn all involved at the beginning they probably won't end up doing themselves any favours, but it will always be the case with some that they will always see the other person as being in the wrong.
Silly
I speak purely as an ordinary Trust member, who knows and likes Henry, but who has also read this thread in full.
The starting point was the five year season tickets we were urged to buy, to get together enough money to heave us across the last hurdle in returning to the Valley.
As a supporters club activist at the time I was one of about 10 people present at the Meridian listening to Martin Simons and Richard Murray. They proposed the director position in recognition that the 5 year season ticket holders would then be a group of financial stakeholders, like the other directors were.
There are maybe one or two others who post on Charlton Life who were present at that meeting too.
I don't think it was proposed as a PR move, but a serious recognition that if a group of supporters supplied up front wedge at the time, then they deserve a place at the table. Richard Murray said at that meeting that the supporters director would have equal standing to the other directors, and that he would hope to achieve friendly consensus on all matters.
Subsequently 'directors confidentiality' became something the supporters director had to go along with too. It didn't seem a problem that firstly Steve Clarke, Craig Norris, and Wendy et al, all the way to HI would honour such confidentiality.
So HI in his role would have self vetoed, letting some information out keeping some information back, what he exposed would to some extent be 'edited' by the forces in the club, the regime at the time.
So if the supporters directors modified things and showed restraint (including HI), isn't it kind of hypocritical for the Trust to be vilified for showing tact and restraint too by a person who used to do the self same thing?
I don't think the Trust suffer from 'groupthink', but I hope they are united in vision and purpose. I don't read in this thread that the club were offered a veto or a subeditor role on Trust articles, either. Personally I thought the final article lacked the promised punch, but then I think that's best left to VOTV anyway.
I share concerns and have expressed my own thoughts regarding the demise of the SD role, but we are where we are and whilst I understand what prompted the initial comment perhaps this is not a constructive avenue to pursue any further. I'm going to back off of this now.
If the Trust can get themselves into a position of insight and encourage the club to greater openness we will all benefit. This will require a compromise and a level of promotion that won't be palatable to all of us at the off, but we should consider the longer term vision and good. It's not going to get into the position I'm sure we all want it to be in without our forbearance, support and encouragement as it finds its feet. And indeed our criticism, constructively offered.
Releasing privileged inside information being discussed at a Board Meeting and writing an article from outside looking in are completely different.
For the record, having read all of the posts i have my own thoughts. If I wish to air these views then I will speak to both parties in private and not on a public forum.
In forming a relationship with the regime, and then exercising tact and restraint, either from the point of view of our supporters director, or our supporters trust, are completely the same.
lol (old skool CL)
Come on guys, lets lighten up, leave it and all move on.
I'm sure there's loads of things here for everyone to learn, but its a molehill that should not be viewed or turned into a mountain.
As far as I can see both HI and Razil are dedicated supporters of this club to the point where both have been, or are currently, prepared to dedicate the time and energy to it that few of us could be bothered with. The fact that they've had a bit of a spat on here is unfortunate but doesn't really change anything. It would be better if the few of our fans that had the knowledge, experience and dedication to actually make a difference to the club were presenting a united front but by the same token a bit of healthy debate and a watching brief between them might not be such a bad thing either. It was unfortunate that it became a bit personal but much as you try, sometimes, especially when you're working your arse off for something that you believe in, it can be hard to depersonalise criticism and I think internet forums and any remote communication really offer ample opportunities for things to spiral when they needn't have.
I personally think it'd be good if we could move on from it now and let them get back to the more important matters at hand.