use them as guides but never let it be the be all and end all. The Metro paper has a print run around 1.3m copies a day and says its read by 3.5m. The truth is probably that at least 10% who pick it up never read a single page, while 30% may only skim through 3 or 4 pages. Its big ticket numbers should not be a guide to its popularity.
The SD role has gone now and there is no point dwelling on it and getting ingrained in the nitty gritty of vote numbers or lack of them.
The Trust too should not get too excited they have nearly a thousand people signed up to what is a low-cost token membership, exactly the same way they should not get too disappointed when out of that membership they only have ten people attend an SGM, or just 20 when they are giving away free beer.
Most supporters genuinely don't give a fig about the ingrained detail of stuff off the pitch outside a crisis. And over time that is getting less and less.
Just as a general principle the Trust needs to be able to demonstrate that it represents the maximum number of people, to the Club, but also to other bodies such as the Council. That's why Swansea made Trust basic membership free to everyone who buys a season ticket. It is done so that that they can quickly mobilise the wider fanbase in the event of another big crisis. Interestingly as a hypothetical example they mentioned 'in case the Council starts acting up"...
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.
seth, that is your opinion and you have every right to view it.
If I need to discuss my opinion with anyone then I will do it in private
It's like a Charlton version of Millwall at Wembley. Bloody noses all over the place.
How incredibly sad. I thought we prided ourselves on being better than that.
Far from it.
A grown up debate about OUR Club, from passionate people who really care.
Not one "you woudn't say that to my face" or "I'll be at The Oak 1pm Saturday with a pink carnation in my buttonhole if you want to discuss this further".
It's like a Charlton version of Millwall at Wembley. Bloody noses all over the place.
How incredibly sad. I thought we prided ourselves on being better than that.
Far from it.
A grown up debate about OUR Club, from passionate people who really care.
Not one "you woudn't say that to my face" or "I'll be at The Oak 1pm Saturday with a pink carnation in my buttonhole if you want to discuss this further".
it's just two grown men having a squabble. Hardly enough to "bring down the trust" like people suggesting. Despite people's self righteous opinion, not every charlton fan ever comes to CL to see what's going down. Again, egos clashing with egos
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.
seth, that is your opinion and you have every right to view it.
If I need to discuss my opinion with anyone then I will do it in private
I am confused. Do you mean that I shouldn't type out loud on here my feeling that the 'veto' and 'groupthink' accusations are snide, but that I should have typed it in secret in a personal message?
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?
EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.
Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.
I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director. Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality. Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters? The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course. I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.
I think you underestimate the symbolic value of the post and, particularly in the context of 1985, the value in having someone present who could be trusted - because they were not there on their own account - to raise the alarm. The limitations of the role were clear from the beginning and I unfairly criticised Steve Clarke for some of them 20 years ago, but the board was quite happy over many years to use the PR value of having an elected supporter on the board.
The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.
I was not defending the decision and never doubted the symbolic importance of the position. I think Ben pointed out above, he was not alone in arguing strongly (albeit ultimately unsuccessfully) for the continuation of the role. The fact that, with that argument unwinnable (for whatever reason), he was able to gain board agreement to a Fans Forum as a means of future supporters' representation should be a cause (then and now) for congratulation, whatever the perceived deficiencies of the FF in operation (now in the context of a new regime of course). Many thanks for the 2006 SD election results. Perhaps I am recalling the results pre the end of the VIP Scheme (I very much doubt that the % turnout for these reached double digits) or perhaps my recollection is simply total bollox (I have a hunch you will demonstrate it is the latter!). In any event, many apologies to all for the misleading estimate.
Going back to the spoilt papers for the last election, I think they were the votes that all came in from the same ISP address. Ie a laptop that had been set up in the royal Oak after a night game before the election! It nearly worked.
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?
EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.
Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.
I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director. Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality. Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters? The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course. I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.
I think you underestimate the symbolic value of the post and, particularly in the context of 1985, the value in having someone present who could be trusted - because they were not there on their own account - to raise the alarm. The limitations of the role were clear from the beginning and I unfairly criticised Steve Clarke for some of them 20 years ago, but the board was quite happy over many years to use the PR value of having an elected supporter on the board.
The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.
Many thanks for the 2006 SD election results. Perhaps I am recalling the results pre the end of the VIP Scheme (I very much doubt that the % turnout for these reached double digits) or perhaps my recollection is simply total bollox (I have a hunch you will demonstrate it is the latter!). In any event, many apologies to all for the misleading estimate.
Nevertheless Mr Molloy your overall point is well made.To a Board, even 15% may not look like a great mandate. That's a challenge facing this and all Trusts. I suppose that it might carry more weight if it is backed by money. Then the Trust can become more like one of those 'institutional investors' which has weight because behind them it has the votes of all the people whose pension funds and unit trust investments they administer.
Going back to the spoilt papers for the last election, I think they were the votes that all came in from the same ISP address. Ie a laptop that had been set up in the royal Oak after a night game before the election! It nearly worked.
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?
EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.
Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.
I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director. Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality. Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters? The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course. I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.
I think you underestimate the symbolic value of the post and, particularly in the context of 1985, the value in having someone present who could be trusted - because they were not there on their own account - to raise the alarm. The limitations of the role were clear from the beginning and I unfairly criticised Steve Clarke for some of them 20 years ago, but the board was quite happy over many years to use the PR value of having an elected supporter on the board.
The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.
I was not defending the decision and never doubted the symbolic importance of the position. I think Ben pointed out above, he was not alone in arguing strongly (albeit ultimately unsuccessfully) for the continuation of the role. The fact that, with that argument unwinnable (for whatever reason), he was able to gain board agreement to a Fans Forum as a means of future supporters' representation should be a cause (then and now) for congratulation, whatever the perceived deficiencies of the FF in operation (now in the context of a new regime of course). Many thanks for the 2006 SD election results. Perhaps I am recalling the results pre the end of the VIP Scheme (I very much doubt that the % turnout for these reached double digits) or perhaps my recollection is simply total bollox (I have a hunch you will demonstrate it is the latter!). In any event, many apologies to all for the misleading estimate.
From recollection the VIP elections were weighted according to how much so done had put it, I.e one vote per £50, so it may be difficult to make a direct comparison, especially bearing in mind directors topped up the scheme (and probably didn't vote). For my own curiosity, rather than to labour the point, I'll see what I can dig up.
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?
EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.
Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.
I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director. Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality. Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters? The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course. I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.
I think you underestimate the symbolic value of the post and, particularly in the context of 1985, the value in having someone present who could be trusted - because they were not there on their own account - to raise the alarm. The limitations of the role were clear from the beginning and I unfairly criticised Steve Clarke for some of them 20 years ago, but the board was quite happy over many years to use the PR value of having an elected supporter on the board.
The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.
I was not defending the decision and never doubted the symbolic importance of the position. I think Ben pointed out above, he was not alone in arguing strongly (albeit ultimately unsuccessfully) for the continuation of the role. The fact that, with that argument unwinnable (for whatever reason), he was able to gain board agreement to a Fans Forum as a means of future supporters' representation should be a cause (then and now) for congratulation, whatever the perceived deficiencies of the FF in operation (now in the context of a new regime of course). Many thanks for the 2006 SD election results. Perhaps I am recalling the results pre the end of the VIP Scheme (I very much doubt that the % turnout for these reached double digits) or perhaps my recollection is simply total bollox (I have a hunch you will demonstrate it is the latter!). In any event, many apologies to all for the misleading estimate.
As much as I don't wish to dwell on history, I don't really like to see it being re-written either. I don't remember hearing any of this 'strong argument' to keep the role. I remember it being delivered by the Fans Director himself, as a fait accompli. That the role could not be continued because of the legal position and there was now point fighting it. If he had put it to the fans that the board were trying to take it away against his will then surely he would have tried to mobilise the fanbase to fight for it to remain? I know I would have fought to keep it had I had any inkling that it was possible.
Steve Clarke 9,186 Jill Humphries 3,212 Bill Jenner 2,827
Turnout £761,250 or 70 per cent of votes able to be cast (not individuals)
Come on AB, that was the first election. It really would have been a shock to get a paltry turnout for that one.....(I'm not sure that the voting wasn't done at a meeting in the porta-cabins - but that really is stretching my memory).
It's like a Charlton version of Millwall at Wembley. Bloody noses all over the place.
How incredibly sad. I thought we prided ourselves on being better than that.
Far from it.
A grown up debate about OUR Club, from passionate people who really care.
Not one "you woudn't say that to my face" or "I'll be at The Oak 1pm Saturday with a pink carnation in my buttonhole if you want to discuss this further".
Blimey, that sounds like another Charlton fans' website that shall remain nameless. The fella who runs it seems to adopt this stance with just about anyone that disagrees with him - which is quite a lot of people because he frequently comes across as a right arse with a personal vendetta against CP (who may have run over his budgie, for all I know, so he might have a good reason!).
Things could have been much worse and it's a million miles from being like anything to do with the spanners - unless someone's been glassed that we haven't found out about yet?
Ive tried to be impartial on this and not get involved but the longer it drags on the more it proves the following
- Why the hell would anyone want to get involved with wotking for a football club - Why do some people have such an ego that they have to act like a politician - Why the fook cant people just turn up and watch Charlton, get behind them without making it some sort of political crusade
I have been fairly apathetic with regard to fan involvement over the years.
I voted for Vince on the FD role just because I know him from the pub and that he is a proper fan and goes everywhere supporting us. But basically the number of votes registered would suggest that most people do not give a toss.
Well done Henry winning the vote with 2.5% of our support but it didnt really prove anything to me.
I didnt get behind the trust for 2 reasons.
1) it seemed a general crusade against the club and the senior management and I had no axe to grind 2) The FF didnt seem to work for me and I remember idiots like Dave Rudd punching above their station.
Clearly this has turned into a personal debate and the club must be laughing their bollocks off and whilst I have my own opinions on one of the people in this thread being one of the rudest, antaganostic, hypocritical and condescending posters ever to grace Charlton Life, all I think this shows is that fans should never, ever get involved with running a football club
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?
EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.
Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.
I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director. Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality. Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters? The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course. I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.
I think you underestimate the symbolic value of the post and, particularly in the context of 1985, the value in having someone present who could be trusted - because they were not there on their own account - to raise the alarm. The limitations of the role were clear from the beginning and I unfairly criticised Steve Clarke for some of them 20 years ago, but the board was quite happy over many years to use the PR value of having an elected supporter on the board.
The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.
I was not defending the decision and never doubted the symbolic importance of the position. I think Ben pointed out above, he was not alone in arguing strongly (albeit ultimately unsuccessfully) for the continuation of the role. The fact that, with that argument unwinnable (for whatever reason), he was able to gain board agreement to a Fans Forum as a means of future supporters' representation should be a cause (then and now) for congratulation, whatever the perceived deficiencies of the FF in operation (now in the context of a new regime of course). Many thanks for the 2006 SD election results. Perhaps I am recalling the results pre the end of the VIP Scheme (I very much doubt that the % turnout for these reached double digits) or perhaps my recollection is simply total bollox (I have a hunch you will demonstrate it is the latter!). In any event, many apologies to all for the misleading estimate.
As much as I don't wish to dwell on history, I don't really like to see it being re-written either. I don't remember hearing any of this 'strong argument' to keep the role. I remember it being delivered by the Fans Director himself, as a fait accompli. That the role could not be continued because of the legal position and there was now point fighting it. If he had put it to the fans that the board were trying to take it away against his will then surely he would have tried to mobilise the fanbase to fight for it to remain? I know I would have fought to keep it had I had any inkling that it was possible.
Arguments made in a boardroom are not necessarily (in fact are rarely) presented to the public. I guess the only people that know for sure what arguments were made in the boardroom on the matter and by whom would have to be the directors present.
Sue Townsend 282 Jean Huelin 156 Vernon Roper 107 Vince Nieszwiec 93 David Rudd 80 Steve Bridge 66 Bob Petty 66 Terry Morris 64 Colin Finch 58 Richard Hone 57 Graham Sadler 48 Heather Alderson 46 Barry Goddard 39 Roy Rayment 38 Peter Starkey 37 Sarah Ellis 35 Bryan Shaw 24 Joanne Bowley 19 David Elks 17 Phil Ninness 15 Martin Reuby 14 Paul Nottage 10 Spolit 75
Turnout 1,446, which I reported in the programme at the time as being out of 18,000 adult season-ticket holders and would make 8 per cent, although I am doubtful that is accurate against the 15,000 in 2006 as that is too big a change. Certainly people will have been confused by there being 22 candidates!
The club doesn't appear to have published the voting, but reported that Wendy Perfect took just under three quarters of the votes against Ray Sams in a 44 per cent turnout. As above, this will be 44 per cent of the money, not the VIPs.
Steve Clarke 9,186 Jill Humphries 3,212 Bill Jenner 2,827
Turnout £761,250 or 70 per cent of votes able to be cast (not individuals)
Come on AB, that was the first election. It really would have been a shock to get a paltry turnout for that one.....(I'm not sure that the voting wasn't done at a meeting in the porta-cabins - but that really is stretching my memory).
Yes, I agree, but more to the point the VIP elections were always going to attract a higher turnout because there was a higher level of commitment involved, it was an integral part of the scheme and a small number of people could cast a lot of votes. There's no real comparison with the 2003 and 2006 elections, which were one fan one vote.
Steve Clarke 9,186 Jill Humphries 3,212 Bill Jenner 2,827
Turnout £761,250 or 70 per cent of votes able to be cast (not individuals)
Come on AB, that was the first election. It really would have been a shock to get a paltry turnout for that one.....(I'm not sure that the voting wasn't done at a meeting in the porta-cabins - but that really is stretching my memory).
Yes, I agree, but more to the point the VIP elections were always going to attract a higher turnout because there was a higher level of commitment involved, it was an integral part of the scheme and a small number of people could cast a lot of votes. There's no real comparison with the 2003 and 2006 elections, which were one fan one vote.
AB, if you look out of your window to the south west, you'll see a little white flag being waved on a distant rooftop.......that's me. Thanks for the info. I stand corrected......now go and have a drink for God's sake.
This question-to both of you-may not ignite the thread but I think it would be really important for the Trust:
looking back on the SD's/ VIPs and setting aside the individuals, would you say its true that the Board afforded the VIP director more respect because he/she was representing people who were shareholders (or had put money in as VIPs)? Can a supporter director ever be taken seriously by the rest of the Board if he/she does not represent 'shareholders' ?
Ive tried to be impartial on this and not get involved but the longer it drags on the more it proves the following
- Why the hell would anyone want to get involved with wotking for a football club - Why do some people have such an ego that they have to act like a politician - Why the fook cant people just turn up and watch Charlton, get behind them without making it some sort of political crusade
I have been fairly apathetic with regard to fan involvement over the years.
I voted for Vince on the FD role just because I know him from the pub and that he is a proper fan and goes everywhere supporting us. But basically the number of votes registered would suggest that most people do not give a toss.
Well done Henry winning the vote with 2.5% of our support but it didnt really prove anything to me.
I didnt get behind the trust for 2 reasons.
1) it seemed a general crusade against the club and the senior management and I had no axe to grind 2) The FF didnt seem to work for me and I remember idiots like Dave Rudd punching above their station.
Clearly this has turned into a personal debate and the club must be laughing their bollocks off and whilst I have my own opinions on one of the people in this thread being one of the rudest, antaganostic, hypocritical and condescending posters ever to grace Charlton Life, all I think this shows is that fans should never, ever get involved with running a football club
Hypocritical? I think you mean hypercritical, but take it from me, MOG does have good days:-)
Steve Clarke 9,186 Jill Humphries 3,212 Bill Jenner 2,827
Turnout £761,250 or 70 per cent of votes able to be cast (not individuals)
Come on AB, that was the first election. It really would have been a shock to get a paltry turnout for that one.....(I'm not sure that the voting wasn't done at a meeting in the porta-cabins - but that really is stretching my memory).
Yes, I agree, but more to the point the VIP elections were always going to attract a higher turnout because there was a higher level of commitment involved, it was an integral part of the scheme and a small number of people could cast a lot of votes. There's no real comparison with the 2003 and 2006 elections, which were one fan one vote.
AB, if you look out of your window to the south west, you'll see a little white flag being waved on a distant rooftop.......that's me. Thanks for the info. I stand corrected......now go and have a drink for God's sake.
Steve Clarke 9,186 Jill Humphries 3,212 Bill Jenner 2,827
Turnout £761,250 or 70 per cent of votes able to be cast (not individuals)
Come on AB, that was the first election. It really would have been a shock to get a paltry turnout for that one.....(I'm not sure that the voting wasn't done at a meeting in the porta-cabins - but that really is stretching my memory).
Yes, I agree, but more to the point the VIP elections were always going to attract a higher turnout because there was a higher level of commitment involved, it was an integral part of the scheme and a small number of people could cast a lot of votes. There's no real comparison with the 2003 and 2006 elections, which were one fan one vote.
AB, if you look out of your window to the south west, you'll see a little white flag being waved on a distant rooftop.......that's me. Thanks for the info. I stand corrected......now go and have a drink for God's sake.
Steve Clarke 9,186 Jill Humphries 3,212 Bill Jenner 2,827
Turnout £761,250 or 70 per cent of votes able to be cast (not individuals)
Come on AB, that was the first election. It really would have been a shock to get a paltry turnout for that one.....(I'm not sure that the voting wasn't done at a meeting in the porta-cabins - but that really is stretching my memory).
Yes, I agree, but more to the point the VIP elections were always going to attract a higher turnout because there was a higher level of commitment involved, it was an integral part of the scheme and a small number of people could cast a lot of votes. There's no real comparison with the 2003 and 2006 elections, which were one fan one vote.
AB, if you look out of your window to the south west, you'll see a little white flag being waved on a distant rooftop.......that's me. Thanks for the info. I stand corrected......now go and have a drink for God's sake.
Are you in the sea, Peanuts?
Someone's out spending their settlement monies. ;-)
This question-to both of you-may not ignite the thread but I think it would be really important for the Trust:
looking back on the SD's/ VIPs and setting aside the individuals, would you say its true that the Board afforded the VIP director more respect because he/she was representing people who were shareholders (or had put money in as VIPs)? Can a supporter director ever be taken seriously by the rest of the Board if he/she does not represent 'shareholders' ?
Wasn't it more to do with the inclusive approach led by Richard Murray and Martin Simons? Looking at the numbers I think the extension of the franchise to all adult season-ticket holders seemed like a better idea that it was; it diluted it too much. Most people don't care about the board and just want to go to matches and see the team. It may have worked better if, say, it had become part of the five-year season-ticket offer. But if you have directors who have no interest in engaging with supporters - and I think TJ is squarely in that category whatever else you make of him - it isn't going to work regardless.
Comments
We will have to agree to disagree, but for me the sourness is the taste of hypocrisy.
How incredibly sad. I thought we prided ourselves on being better than that.
If I need to discuss my opinion with anyone then I will do it in private
A grown up debate about OUR Club, from passionate people who really care.
Not one "you woudn't say that to my face" or "I'll be at The Oak 1pm Saturday with a pink carnation in my buttonhole if you want to discuss this further".
Many thanks for the 2006 SD election results. Perhaps I am recalling the results pre the end of the VIP Scheme (I very much doubt that the % turnout for these reached double digits) or perhaps my recollection is simply total bollox (I have a hunch you will demonstrate it is the latter!).
In any event, many apologies to all for the misleading estimate.
Steve Clarke 9,186
Jill Humphries 3,212
Bill Jenner 2,827
Turnout £761,250 or 70 per cent of votes able to be cast (not individuals)
Things could have been much worse and it's a million miles from being like anything to do with the spanners - unless someone's been glassed that we haven't found out about yet?
- Why the hell would anyone want to get involved with wotking for a football club
- Why do some people have such an ego that they have to act like a politician
- Why the fook cant people just turn up and watch Charlton, get behind them without making it some sort of political crusade
I have been fairly apathetic with regard to fan involvement over the years.
I voted for Vince on the FD role just because I know him from the pub and that he is a proper fan and goes everywhere supporting us. But basically the number of votes registered would suggest that most people do not give a toss.
Well done Henry winning the vote with 2.5% of our support but it didnt really prove anything to me.
I didnt get behind the trust for 2 reasons.
1) it seemed a general crusade against the club and the senior management and I had no axe to grind
2) The FF didnt seem to work for me and I remember idiots like Dave Rudd punching above their station.
Clearly this has turned into a personal debate and the club must be laughing their bollocks off and whilst I have my own opinions on one of the people in this thread being one of the rudest, antaganostic, hypocritical and condescending posters ever to grace Charlton Life, all I think this shows is that fans should never, ever get involved with running a football club
I guess the only people that know for sure what arguments were made in the boardroom on the matter and by whom would have to be the directors present.
Sue Townsend 282
Jean Huelin 156
Vernon Roper 107
Vince Nieszwiec 93
David Rudd 80
Steve Bridge 66
Bob Petty 66
Terry Morris 64
Colin Finch 58
Richard Hone 57
Graham Sadler 48
Heather Alderson 46
Barry Goddard 39
Roy Rayment 38
Peter Starkey 37
Sarah Ellis 35
Bryan Shaw 24
Joanne Bowley 19
David Elks 17
Phil Ninness 15
Martin Reuby 14
Paul Nottage 10
Spolit 75
Turnout 1,446, which I reported in the programme at the time as being out of 18,000 adult season-ticket holders and would make 8 per cent, although I am doubtful that is accurate against the 15,000 in 2006 as that is too big a change. Certainly people will have been confused by there being 22 candidates!
The club doesn't appear to have published the voting, but reported that Wendy Perfect took just under three quarters of the votes against Ray Sams in a 44 per cent turnout. As above, this will be 44 per cent of the money, not the VIPs.
Thanks for the info. I stand corrected......now go and have a drink for God's sake.
This question-to both of you-may not ignite the thread but I think it would be really important for the Trust:
looking back on the SD's/ VIPs and setting aside the individuals, would you say its true that the Board afforded the VIP director more respect because he/she was representing people who were shareholders (or had put money in as VIPs)? Can a supporter director ever be taken seriously by the rest of the Board if he/she does not represent 'shareholders' ?
Someone's out spending their settlement monies. ;-)