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:-)
Oi ! What have I done now ?
(PS, Can you give me your e-mail address in a pm @stilladdicted please ?)
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.
I completely agree. The short answer is that, in my opinion, it depends not on whether the SD is representing shareholders but on the circumstances and the disposition of the main directors making the invitation (usually the largest shareholders themselves, of course). So, I would not draw hard and fast conclusions for the future from the CA experience of 1993 onwards but I'd add a few specific observations to AB's: 1. Steve Clarke joined a much smaller board than others (I think he made it 7 or 8 when he was appointed, compared to Ben being one of 14 or so). Inclusivity is a good deal easier among 8 than 14. 2. Pre-1997 and the creation of CA PLC, the VIP Director sat on the only decision-making board at the Club, the CAFC board. No VIPD or SD ever sat on the CA PLC board which, as it included the main shareholders, was responsible for many of the key financial decisions. Not that the CAFC board was from that point shut out of info, discussions and influence on financial matters. Far from it - RM went out of his way for years to treat the 2 boards pretty much as one. However, in later times, it would not be unfair to say that the growth in the number of larger shareholders and total number of directors inevitably led to a greater distinction between the remits of the boards and the influence of their respective members (supporters' representative or not). 3. To be precise the VIPD was not a representative of shareholders. Unless my memory really is shot, the VIP Scheme pre-dated the issue of shares to fans in 1994 and was a long term season-ticket scheme. So VIPs did not buy shares but made a critical (literally critical) financial contribution by stumping up the cash up-front for 10 year STs and other packages. It would of course be true that they were probably the less financially strapped supporters (and probably subsequently bought shares) and so, I guess, given the perilous financial condition of the Club that persisted at least up to flotation in 1997, it was probably in the sub-conscious that the VIPD was representing fans that might, once again, need to be called on in times of financial emergency. Maybe that bestowed some weight to the position in the early days. Anyway, I don't know how far that goes to answering your question Prague but them's my impressions.
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:-)
Oi ! What have I done now ?
(PS, Can you give me your e-mail address in a pm @stilladdicted please ?)
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:-)
Oi ! What have I done now ?
(PS, Can you give me your e-mail address in a pm @stilladdicted please ?)
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.
If TJ doesn't engage with his own manager he's hardly likely to engage with the fans.
Back in 1987, the supporters' club newsletter, later Valiants' Viewpoint, published an article that was critical of Peter Burrowes as press officer and some critical comments by Steve Dixon about the fact we were playing at Selhurst Park or suchlike.
This led to a row with the club and CASC agreeing that future issues would by read by a director for approval before publication. This was the trigger for Voice of The Valley. So there is nothing new in the world.
The Trust is trying to do a number of things and it may not be realistic to do all of them at once. I don't personally think its financial comments are anything that needs to come from the trust or add anything to what can and has been derived independently by others, despite the endless significance attached to them by the author(s).
I think people are missing the significance of the work on finance...For the first time we have forecasts...dry/ boring perhaps? But actually the first step in board watching and the article mentioned on this seasons possible losses was read by 1,000 fans. It is looking at where the club is going, killing off the idea that the club will have an equity injection any time soon. This is not because the club said so - it is out there on the pitch where it looks like the playing squad has experienced a £1.5M cut in the annual budget.
The club losses are going down from £7m to £5m so there is no need to inject £1M each and every month is there? The losses are smaller so this reduces the risk of the club going into administration. And one can go on about the meaning of the numbers and where the club should go next... should it be aiming to break even or find some investors to move back into the top half of the table? Are we going into an era like the 70s where the best players are sold and there is never any chance of reaching the play-offs?
Some will argue that sustainability makes sense - a lot more sense than what we all saw under Pardew with millions squandered in that vain attempt to regain premier league status. And others will say sign some more players... and there are other avenues like going all out to fill the Valley - sell those empty seats to raise some cash to help address the deficit.
But gates are down this year and the Trust still awaits a response on an offer to follow up on the Wigan flyer campaign where Trust volunteers delivered 15-16,000 flyers. Let us see if the club wants the fans to assist - for the latest Trust survey has yielded 100 fans who want to help the Trust and/or club in one way or another.
I can understand people's frustrations that more needs to be done and also that the club is in a state of limbo until there is clarity. And I have been consistent in saying this is going to be a bumpy season. We know that the club is for sale and that the longer this takes the more the club is at risk of not developing.
What I didn't expect was that we would still be waiting for an answer on ACV in mid November nor that there would be nearly 2,000 fans signing the e-petition - we had hoped that we could wander around the Back to the Valley Dinner saying "we have here this piece of paper" but it isn't happening?
So in summary the Trust can do a lot of things but seeking to protect the Valley and understand the club finances are two which I believe have value. The very least they can do is shed light on possible futures for the club.
Blimey, what a waste of an hour reading through this thread was.
"Boardroom Watch" - 8 pages of comments...
I thought a takeover had actually happened.
Instead I find that it is yet another thread of petty squables between HI and The Trust in which my personal opinion of both parties is a little further diminished.
Back in 1987, the supporters' club newsletter, later Valiants' Viewpoint, published an article that was critical of Peter Burrowes as press officer and some critical comments by Steve Dixon about the fact we were playing at Selhurst Park or suchlike.
This led to a row with the club and CASC agreeing that future issues would by read by a director for approval before publication. This was the trigger for Voice of The Valley. So there is nothing new in the world.
The Trust is trying to do a number of things and it may not be realistic to do all of them at once. I don't personally think its financial comments are anything that needs to come from the trust or add anything to what can and has been derived independently by others, despite the endless significance attached to them by the author(s).
I think people are missing the significance of the work on finance...For the first time we have forecasts...dry/ boring perhaps? But actually the first step in board watching and the article mentioned on this seasons possible losses was read by 1,000 fans. It is looking at where the club is going, killing off the idea that the club will have an equity injection any time soon. This is not because the club said so - it is out there on the pitch where it looks like the playing squad has experienced a £1.5M cut in the annual budget.
The club losses are going down from £7m to £5m so there is no need to inject £1M each and every month is there? The losses are smaller so this reduces the risk of the club going into administration. And one can go on about the meaning of the numbers and where the club should go next... should it be aiming to break even or find some investors to move back into the top half of the table? Are we going into an era like the 70s where the best players are sold and there is never any chance of reaching the play-offs?
Some will argue that sustainability makes sense - a lot more sense than what we all saw under Pardew with millions squandered in that vain attempt to regain premier league status. And others will say sign some more players... and there are other avenues like going all out to fill the Valley - sell those empty seats to raise some cash to help address the deficit.
But gates are down this year and the Trust still awaits a response on an offer to follow up on the Wigan flyer campaign where Trust volunteers delivered 15-16,000 flyers. Let us see if the club wants the fans to assist - for the latest Trust survey has yielded 100 fans who want to help the Trust and/or club in one way or another.
I can understand people's frustrations that more needs to be done and also that the club is in a state of limbo until there is clarity. And I have been consistent in saying this is going to be a bumpy season. We know that the club is for sale and that the longer this takes the more the club is at risk of not developing.
What I didn't expect was that we would still be waiting for an answer on ACV in mid November nor that there would be nearly 2,000 fans signing the e-petition - we had hoped that we could wander around the Back to the Valley Dinner saying "we have here this piece of paper" but it isn't happening?
So in summary the Trust can do a lot of things but seeking to protect the Valley and understand the club finances are two which I believe have value. The very least they can do is shed light on possible futures for the club.
Hope that reference to Trust "business" at the upcoming dinner was totally tongue in cheek, s_r !
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.
The Trust is entering its second year and is about to meet with the club to discuss some initiatives. Each and every quarter the Trust has gained 1,000 fan contacts with a variety of tactics, the latest being ACV which we all thought would be a walk in the park and here we are 15 weeks later with no resolution. During that time the Trust has run one, sometimes two matchday stalls on club property at each and every home game. It is the easiest journey in the world to abandon that stall and walk across the road and stand next to Airman but my instinct tells me that it will be a lot harder to cross back again. We take the points made about numbers on board and we are not yet clear what the potential is. But we can see a clear path to taking the fan contact numbers up from 4,000 to 6 or 7,000 by the end of the season. I mention this rather than membership numbers because there is a presumption that people will join up fairly quickly if needed. For instance if ACV becomes a real tussle shining a light on some hidden agenda?!
Comments
What have I done now ?
(PS, Can you give me your e-mail address in a pm @stilladdicted please ?)
1. Steve Clarke joined a much smaller board than others (I think he made it 7 or 8 when he was appointed, compared to Ben being one of 14 or so). Inclusivity is a good deal easier among 8 than 14.
2. Pre-1997 and the creation of CA PLC, the VIP Director sat on the only decision-making board at the Club, the CAFC board. No VIPD or SD ever sat on the CA PLC board which, as it included the main shareholders, was responsible for many of the key financial decisions. Not that the CAFC board was from that point shut out of info, discussions and influence on financial matters. Far from it - RM went out of his way for years to treat the 2 boards pretty much as one. However, in later times, it would not be unfair to say that the growth in the number of larger shareholders and total number of directors inevitably led to a greater distinction between the remits of the boards and the influence of their respective members (supporters' representative or not).
3. To be precise the VIPD was not a representative of shareholders. Unless my memory really is shot, the VIP Scheme pre-dated the issue of shares to fans in 1994 and was a long term season-ticket scheme. So VIPs did not buy shares but made a critical (literally critical) financial contribution by stumping up the cash up-front for 10 year STs and other packages. It would of course be true that they were probably the less financially strapped supporters (and probably subsequently bought shares) and so, I guess, given the perilous financial condition of the Club that persisted at least up to flotation in 1997, it was probably in the sub-conscious that the VIPD was representing fans that might, once again, need to be called on in times of financial emergency. Maybe that bestowed some weight to the position in the early days.
Anyway, I don't know how far that goes to answering your question Prague but them's my impressions.
Time for a drink, as you said, mr Molloy
The club losses are going down from £7m to £5m so there is no need to inject £1M each and every month is there? The losses are smaller so this reduces the risk of the club going into administration. And one can go on about the meaning of the numbers and where the club should go next... should it be aiming to break even or find some investors to move back into the top half of the table? Are we going into an era like the 70s where the best players are sold and there is never any chance of reaching the play-offs?
Some will argue that sustainability makes sense - a lot more sense than what we all saw under Pardew with millions squandered in that vain attempt to regain premier league status. And others will say sign some more players... and there are other avenues like going all out to fill the Valley - sell those empty seats to raise some cash to help address the deficit.
But gates are down this year and the Trust still awaits a response on an offer to follow up on the Wigan flyer campaign where Trust volunteers delivered 15-16,000 flyers. Let us see if the club wants the fans to assist - for the latest Trust survey has yielded 100 fans who want to help the Trust and/or club in one way or another.
I can understand people's frustrations that more needs to be done and also that the club is in a state of limbo until there is clarity. And I have been consistent in saying this is going to be a bumpy season. We know that the club is for sale and that the longer this takes the more the club is at risk of not developing.
What I didn't expect was that we would still be waiting for an answer on ACV in mid November nor that there would be nearly 2,000 fans signing the e-petition - we had hoped that we could wander around the Back to the Valley Dinner saying "we have here this piece of paper" but it isn't happening?
So in summary the Trust can do a lot of things but seeking to protect the Valley and understand the club finances are two which I believe have value. The very least they can do is shed light on possible futures for the club.
"Boardroom Watch" - 8 pages of comments...
I thought a takeover had actually happened.
Instead I find that it is yet another thread of petty squables between HI and The Trust in which my personal opinion of both parties is a little further diminished.
Shame.
During that time the Trust has run one, sometimes two matchday stalls on club property at each and every home game.
It is the easiest journey in the world to abandon that stall and walk across the road and stand next to Airman but my instinct tells me that it will be a lot harder to cross back again.
We take the points made about numbers on board and we are not yet clear what the potential is. But we can see a clear path to taking the fan contact numbers up from 4,000 to 6 or 7,000 by the end of the season. I mention this rather than membership numbers because there is a presumption that people will join up fairly quickly if needed. For instance if ACV becomes a real tussle shining a light on some hidden agenda?!
Edit: But screwed that up as well.
Silly me.